Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

New Member

The following Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:
Sarah Green, for Chesham and Amersham.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am suspending the House briefly to allow the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I wish to make a statement about the senior leadership of the House of Commons service. I am pleased to announce that, following a competitive recruitment process, Marianne Cwynarski CBE has been appointed as director general of the House of Commons service with immediate effect. Marianne is currently the managing director of the Governance Office and the secretary to the House of Commons Commission. She has taken a leading and very successful role in ensuring that the House service has been able to operate effectively during the covid-19 pandemic. I wish personally to congratulate Marianne on her appointment and look forward to working with her in her new role. I am sure the House will agree that she has already given sterling service to this House—may that continue.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Education

The Secretary of State was asked—

Disadvantaged Students: Tutoring Support

Caroline Ansell: What steps his Department is taking to provide disadvantaged students with access to high-quality tutoring support.

Jason McCartney: What steps his Department is taking to provide high-quality catch-up support to students.

Henry Smith: What steps his Department is taking to provide high-quality tutoring to disadvantaged students.

Mark Logan: What steps his Department is taking to provide high-quality tutoring to disadvantaged students.

James Sunderland: What steps his Department is taking to provide high-quality tutoring to disadvantaged students.

Gavin Williamson: rose—

Caroline Ansell: Early feedback from my local school leaders suggests that tutoring is going to make a real difference, but there is some small concern that it can come with an opportunity cost in the school day, potentially affecting pupils’ experience of a broad and balanced curriculum, especially the creative arts and sports. Is that therefore an important consideration in the debate about having a longer school day, especially if tutoring could prove to be the longer-term strategy that we need to address the pre-pandemic attainment gap?

Lindsay Hoyle: Secretary of State, will you please pick up the first part of the question?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As we bring forward the largest investment in tutoring that this country has ever seen, we want to look at how we can continue to make changes and improvements to the whole of the school day. That way, we can not only embed the tutoring revolution that we are driving forward but ensure that the other areas of enrichment that are so important for a child’s development are properly incorporated into any changes.

Jason McCartney: My area of Kirklees continues to have higher covid case rates than the national average, which means that more pupils and students are having to self-isolate and miss classroom teaching, which has an increased impact on wellbeing and mental health. Will the Secretary of State please tell me what extra catch-up funding and support is available for schools and colleges in areas such as mine, where there are above average rates of absence?

Gavin Williamson: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a £650 million universal catch-up premium, as well as the recovery premium. That funding is very much to ensure that schools such as those in his constituency are best able to target that money at the areas that will have the most impact on children. We must not lose sight of the fact that children from whatever background have been impacted as a result of covid, which is why we have always aimed to have flexibility in the system so that schools can support all children.

Henry Smith: I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. What particular support will be made available to disadvantaged pupils who have a disability and are therefore more affected still?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend raises a vital point. That is why we took the decision to ensure a higher rate of funding for special schools and for schools that provide alternative provision, recognising that they will want more specialist and one-to-one tutoring for those children.

Mark Logan: Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss Tutor the Nation, which is now being rolled out right across Bolton, and the lessons that it might provide for the rest of the country?

Gavin Williamson: I would very much like to hear not only how Tutor the Nation is tutoring Bolton, but how we can do so much more to tutor all the other parts of the nation as well, so I would be more than delighted to meet my hon. Friend. I will ask my office to get in touch with him so that we can meet to discuss the work that Tutor the Nation is doing in his constituency.

James Sunderland: Will the Secretary of State please update the House on progress with the special educational needs and disability review and also confirm that we will be investing more in focused intervention for those who need extra support?

Gavin Williamson: I know that this issue is close to my hon. Friend’s heart. Yes, we have been making progress on the special educational needs review. Sadly, as a result of a pandemic, the speed at which we had hoped to bring it back to the House has been slowed, but we will be providing an update in the near future. It is incredibly important that our interventions for children with the most acute needs are specially tailored to address not only some of the challenges that covid has thrown up, but the continuing challenges that all children with special educational needs experience.

Kate Green: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what proportion of children will have received tutoring under the national tutoring programme by the end of this academic year?

Gavin Williamson: We had set out the aim of having a quarter of a million children going through the national tutoring programme, but, as a result of the take-up of the programme and the success that individual and small group tutoring has had, we have set out an ambition and an aim to massively expand that programme over the coming years.

Kate Green: The latest figures show that it is just under 3% of pupils in this academic year, and even the funding for next year will reach only 8% of students, yet last week in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that the Government want to get on the side of all kids who do not have access to tuition and support them. Why did the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister fail to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to invest in what Sir Kevan Collins said is needed to secure children’s futures, or does he in fact agree with the Chancellor who has said that the Government have “maxed out” on support?

Gavin Williamson: The Prime Minister and I have outlined a clear plan to roll out tutoring to 6 million children up and down the country. We recognise the importance of small group tutoring and how it can benefit every child. That is why we have set out our ambition, and that is what we will deliver. It has already been an incredibly successful programme. We want to build on it. We want to add extra flexibility for schools so that we can reach all children right across the nation.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us go to the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: Even before the pandemic, persistent absence—pupils missing 10% or more of their education—was alarmingly high, at 13.1%. As pupils have returned, the overall rate has remained stubbornly high at 13%, or at around 916,000 pupils. For secondary pupils, it has actually risen from 15% to 16.3%. What are the Department’s plans to bring persistent absence down?

Gavin Williamson: This is an incredibly important area. At the very start of the pandemic, we set up the regional education and children’s teams—REACT—which were a co-operation between schools, local government, the Department for Education and the police in order to target some of the youngsters who struggle the most and are most likely not to be in school. We continue to expand that work through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to help the families who struggle the most, and recognise that it is children in that category who are most vulnerable and possibly the most likely to have persistent absence from schools. We will continue to work across Government, recognising that it is not just about schools, but about local authorities, the police, health and social care coming together to bring children back into the classroom and to ensure that they are not missing out on school.

Financial Education

Alex Cunningham: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of providing financial education to children at primary school level.

Nick Gibb: It is important that pupils are well prepared to manage their money, make sound financial decisions and know where to seek further information. Financial education forms part of the citizenship curriculum, which can be taught at all key stages but is compulsory at key stages 3 and 4.

Alex Cunningham: In 2013, the Money and Pensions Service found that our money habits and attitudes towards finance are formed by the age of seven. However, eight years later the Government have still not made financial education compulsory within the primary school curriculum. Does the Minister agree that teaching our children positive saving habits at a young age is vital to their financial futures, and that dormant assets from the savings and investment sector could fund initiatives such as KickStart Money to deliver primary financial education for all?

Nick Gibb: The priority at primary school must be to ensure that all children have a firm grasp of the fundamentals of arithmetic: that they can add, subtract, multiply and divide; that they know their times tables by heart; and that they can add, subtract and multiply fractions. In 2013, the Government introduced a new primary maths curriculum that includes ratio and proportions, that teaches pupils to use percentages and that introduces them to algebra. In year 2, pupils are introduced to the values of our coinage. That is all fundamental to being secure in handling finances and being taught financial education at key stage 3.

Performing and Creative Arts, Media Studies  and Archaeology

Margaret Greenwood: What steps he is taking to support universities to provide courses on (a) performing and creative arts, (b) media studies and (c) archaeology.

Michelle Donelan: This Government value the arts and social sciences. High-quality provision in a range of subjects, including archaeology, is vital for our workforce and public services, and is culturally enriching for society. Universities receive a top-up from the taxpayer for all the subjects referred to, and although the Office for Students consultation has proposed changes to the amounts, it does not seek to remove the top-up entirely.

Margaret Greenwood: The Government’s decision to cut funding to performing and creative arts, media studies and archaeology courses by a total of £20 million will diminish our future cultural offer, reduce opportunities for students and put jobs at risk. The University and College Union is campaigning hard to save jobs at the University of Chester; I pay tribute to it for doing so. Nevertheless, the university is still planning to make redundancies in some areas, including music, media and performance. Does the Minister recognise the huge contribution that arts and culture make to the UK economy and to all our lives, and will she support the UCU campaign to save jobs at the University of Chester?

Michelle Donelan: Despite the hon. Member’s claims, the strategic priorities grant accounts for approximately only 0.05% of higher education providers’ total income. The House should be under no illusion that this Government 100% support the arts, which is why we asked the OFS to invest an additional £10 million in our world-leading specialist providers, many of which specialise in arts provision, and why we have spent £2 billion through the cultural recovery programme, plus furlough and plus VAT and other reliefs—more than any other country.

Matt Western: Research by the British Academy has shown that of the 10 fastest growing sectors in the UK economy, eight employ more graduates from the arts, humanities and social sciences than the other disciplines, and MillionPlus states that
“there is an economic imperative to invest in creative arts education…job creation is double the rate of the rest of the economy.”
Just take media studies, which the Government state is not a strategic priority, despite our making some of the best films, TV, theatre and advertising in the world. Last year the UK saw inward investment in co-production spend in film and TV account for 83% of the entire production spend, underlining our global reputation. The Government seem to be unaware that this country is a globally renowned creative powerhouse. Can I just urge the Government to get into SHAPE—social sciences, humanities and the arts for people and the economy? Will the Minister accept that the benefit that this nation derives from university education cannot be measured solely in terms of its immediate economic impact?

Michelle Donelan: Just to reiterate, this Government are not disputing the value of the arts either to our economy or to our society. I want to fully confirm that on the record. We have asked the OfS to consult on altering the high-cost subject funding to enable a reprioritisation of some subjects towards the provision of high-cost subjects that support the NHS and wider healthcare policy, high-cost STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—subjects, and subjects meeting specific labour market needs. I reiterate that this accounts for only approximately 0.05% of higher education providers’ total income.

School Quality and Outcomes: Disadvantaged Areas

Ben Bradley: What steps his Department is taking to improve (a) the quality of schools and (b) outcomes for pupils in the most disadvantaged areas.

Gavin Williamson: I am committed to levelling up education, and see strong multi-academy trusts as the best vehicle for achieving this. That is why we are investing £10 million in four high-needs areas, including Ashfield and Mansfield, to improve pupil outcomes. Up to half of this will be channelled through the successful trust capacity fund.

Ben Bradley: I welcome the news that Mansfield and Ashfield will get a share of that £10 million fund to drive school improvement in disadvantaged areas and to boost academic outcomes for our young people. That is very welcome indeed. The other half of this conversation is perhaps about the non-academic side—the cultural enrichment, extra-curricular activities and raising of aspirations that might support young people to reach their potential. What opportunities might exist in that kind of space for our schools to access support?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the enrichment that goes on in so many of the most successful schools right across the country. That is why we are absolutely committed to trying to work with trusts from across the country to target areas such as Mansfield and Ashfield to bring the most successful trusts into those areas to drive up educational attainment. We look forward to working with him. I will be delighted to sit down with him to discuss what more we can do to drive not just academic attainment across schools in his constituency but the rich cultural offer that schools can offer their pupils, which is incredibly important for all children.

Carol Monaghan: It might be raining today in London, but in Glasgow and across Scotland the sun is out, which is great because over the next week Scottish schools break up for their summer holidays. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking the teachers and support staff for the great work they have done and will wish Scottish schoolchildren and young people a very safe and enjoyable summer holiday.
Improving academic outcomes for disadvantaged children needs strong, professional input, but hunger is not conducive to effective learning, so when will we see this Government mirror the approach of the Scottish Government and provide free school meals for all primary schoolchildren?

Gavin Williamson: I very much join the hon. Lady in thanking teachers not just across Scotland but right across the United Kingdom; they have done an amazing job. It is lovely to see her in the Palace of Westminster after a period of time. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we support families and support children. That is why we are rolling out our holiday activities and food programme, which is an incredibly important part of supporting children not just by feeding them but by providing activities as well.

Carol Monaghan: Unfortunately the Secretary of State avoids the question. For many families on the edge, free school meals really do make a difference. It is a tale of two Governments, because the Scottish Government are focused on the health and wellbeing of children, including the transformational Scottish child payment of £10 a week per eligible child, and the UK Government are not taking action on free school meals and primary schoolchildren. Will he update the House on any discussions he has had with the Chancellor to provide more money in this area, and possibly even on retaining the £20 a week universal credit uplift?

Gavin Williamson: One of the great advantages of being a United Kingdom is that we are able to pull together and ensure that there is the support that has been made available, whether that is through the furlough scheme, which everyone within the United Kingdom has been able to benefit from; whether that is through the uplifts in universal credit, which everyone right across the United Kingdom has been able to benefit from; or whether that is through the continued action that we have undertaken to put in extra funding, including for free school meals and for the holiday activities and food programme, which the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, have been able to benefit from as a result of the Barnett consequentials that have fed through as a result.

Maintained Nursery Schools

Theresa Villiers: If he will publish a long-term financial settlement for maintained nursery schools.

Vicky Ford: Maintained nursery schools are an important part of the early years sector and provide valuable services, especially in disadvantaged areas. The Government remain committed to their long-term funding and to reaching a long-term solution by working with the sector. Any reform of its funding will follow a public consultation.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but we need this long-term settlement for maintained nursery schools. There are three wonderful maintained nursery schools in my constituency, and their very survival is now in jeopardy. We need that long-term settlement and, even more urgently, we need a consultation on reallocating supplementary funding so that areas such as Barnet, which has got zero from that funding, can actually receive some of it as an interim solution to keep the maintained nursery schools above water until we get that settlement.

Vicky Ford: My right hon. Friend is a true, passionate spokesperson for the maintained nursery schools sector. Supplementary funding allows the local authorities to protect their maintained nursery schools at the 2016-17 funding level. Back in 2017, Barnet got a 23% increase in its early years funding rate. That is now the 11th highest rate in England, so supplementary funding was not provided because there was not a funding gap in the MNS sector to protect. The next spending review will consider future Government funding, including that for maintained nursery schools.

School Rebuilding Programme

Chris Matheson: When he plans to announce the results of the recent round of applications for the school rebuilding programme.

Gavin Williamson: We announced the first 50 rebuilding projects in February as part of the commitment to 500 projects over the next decade. A process to identify the next 50 projects, informed by the Department’s data on the condition of schools, began in March, and we plan to confirm which schools are included later on this year.

Chris Matheson: The Secretary of State will know that Upton-by-Chester High School in my constituency is rated good, with an outstanding sixth form, but it needs a rebuild, and the local authority maintenance repair budget is inappropriate and insufficient. What advice can the Secretary of State therefore give to me, the governors and the headteacher at Upton High to ensure that we are on that next list?

Gavin Williamson: As tempted as I am to pre-announce that list to the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid I am not in that position. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss some of the challenges that he has. The reason that we have announced a commitment to the rebuilding of 500 schools, admittedly over a number of years, is so that we are able to have proper sight of some of the challenges that high schools and primary schools face, have proper information on their condition and have a proper understanding as to where that priority sits as part of a broader national priority. I would be very happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman to discuss that in further detail.

Closing the Digital Divide

Siobhain McDonagh: What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the UK Committee for UNICEF and the Carnegie UK Trust's report entitled “Closing the Digital Divide for Good”.

Nick Gibb: Over 1.3 million laptops and tablets and 75,000 4G wireless routers have been distributed to schools and local authorities. We are building on the Department’s significant investment in devices, platforms, training and digital services to develop an evidence-based strategy for the most effective long-term approach to digital technology in education.

Siobhain McDonagh: Before the lockdown, children on the wrong side of the digital divide were already leaving school behind their classmates. Schools closed, and despite the Government’s tech roll-out and the great community effort right across the country, a quarter of children on free school meals did less than one hour’s school work a week. This is not a problem for the past; closing the digital divide will be critical to genuinely levelling up our tech-reliant society. Will the Government support my campaign calling for every child entitled to a free school meal to have internet access and an adequate device at home?

Nick Gibb: I read the joint article in The Times this morning by the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) about the UNICEF report and her objectives, and I agree with much of what they have both written, particularly about the importance of closing the digital divide. I am grateful for the acknowledgement in that article of the much needed support to disadvantaged children that the provision by this Government of 1.3 million laptops and tablets gave. One should not underestimate the size and scale of that procurement: 1.3 million devices built to order, shipped, configured and delivered to schools and local authorities, all at a time of peak international demand for such computer equipment.

Summer-born and Premature Children

Stephen Hammond: What recent progress the Government have made on enabling the parents of summer-born and premature children to defer their child’s school start date.

Nick Gibb: We published guidance in 2020 on the delayed admission of summer-born children to a reception class where that is what parents want. In May, the Secretary of State issued a statement to ensure admissions authorities take these decisions in the best interests of the child, and we will legislate when parliamentary time permits.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Department for their continuing support for my campaign to recognise the need for summer-born children to have that flexibility. He rightly says that the Department will legislate as and when is appropriate, but can I urge him to speak again to the Treasury to point out that it would be one of the most effective ways of levelling up and creating levelling-up opportunities? Will he meet me to discuss what the Treasury’s response might be and what more can be done to ensure that legislation is brought forward?

Nick Gibb: Yes, of course, I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. Summer-born children who defer entry to school by a year continue of course to be entitled to a childcare place before they start school, so the costs will depend on the number of parents who choose to delay entry and the need for childcare. However, I should say to my hon. Friend that, in the surveys we have been carrying out with local authorities, the vast majority of requests to delay entry and to return to school in reception rather than year 1 are granted by local authorities.

School Transport Costs

Mary Foy: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the cost of school transport.

Gavin Williamson: In the past three years, there has been an 18% increase in local authority spend on school transport, reaching £1.3 billion in the year 2019-20.

Mary Foy: Although St Leonard’s Catholic School in Durham has done its best to subsidise the cost of school transport for families over the past year, it can no longer afford to do so, and for some the cost per student will rise from £50 to £70 a month. Will the Education Secretary explain what the Government are doing to protect families in Durham from that increased and unexpected cost, and will he meet me before the summer holidays to discuss school transport?

Gavin Williamson: If the hon. Lady would be kind enough to send in more details of the issue she has raised, I would be very happy to organise for the Minister for School Standards to meet her to discuss in finer detail some of her concerns, some of the challenges that the local authority may be facing and what needs to be done by Durham County Council.

Sexual Abuse in Schools: LGBT+ Pupils

Michael Fabricant: With reference to the report published by Ofsted on 10 June 2021 entitled “Review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges”, what steps his Department is taking to support LGBT+ pupils to report to teachers incidences of harmful sexual behaviour in school.

Vicky Ford: Schools are under a legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children and must have regard to keeping children safe in education. The guidance is clear that, while anyone can be a victim of abuse, schools should recognise that some groups, including LGBTQ+ pupils, are potentially more at risk.

Michael Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but she will know that the Ofsted report identified a huge discrepancy between the knowledge of teachers of incidents that are harmful to young LGBT children and the actual experience of it, so what steps can the Department take to train teachers to recognise how harmful sexual behaviour actually affects LGBT young people?

Vicky Ford: The Government are committed to working with school leaders, governors and teachers to improve how they can better recognise the effects of sexual harassment and abuse, and better support victims. We expect the issues raised by LGBTQ+ pupils to be addressed as part of this really important work.

Climate Change Education

Munira Wilson: If he will take steps to ensure that pupils who opt out of GCSE geography receive education on climate change.

Gavin Williamson: It is vital that pupils are taught about climate change, which is why related topics are included throughout the geography and science curriculums from five to 14 and five to 16, respectively. That is mandatory in state-maintained schools. Academies must offer a broad and balanced curriculum, as exemplified by the national curriculum.

Munira Wilson: I hope the Secretary of State will join me in welcoming my hon. Friend the new Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) to the Chamber today. I am sure he will agree that it is critical that children and young people learn about the scientific causes and consequences of climate change, and that they are equipped for the future in terms of practical action and the impact on jobs and future careers. With fewer than 50% of GSCE pupils taking geography, what consideration has he given to creating a standalone subject that properly prepares and empowers our young people to engage with climate change?

Gavin Williamson: Of course I join the hon. Lady—and, I am sure, all Members—in welcoming a new Member to the House. It is a shame that the few Liberal Democrat MPs who are left could not be bothered to stay for Education questions. Perhaps that shows the priority that the Liberals put on education, compared with Conservative Members and Labour Members as well. It is nice that there is a lone voice on behalf of Liberal England.
It is incredibly important that climate change is taught, and it is vital that it is a key part of the geography curriculum. It is also an incredibly important part of the science curriculum. We know that science is critical to understanding climate change, and all Members of the House are deeply indebted to the former Member for Finchley, and her amazing work in highlighting global climate change in the 1980s, when she was Prime Minister. She was not just speaking to the United Kingdom; she was speaking to the globe. I am sure many Members, including Opposition Members, recognise the amazing work she did in ensuring that we understand climate change and can act on that.

Delayed Speech: Disadvantaged Children

Caroline Ansell: What steps he is taking to tackle the increase in delayed speech among reception age children from disadvantaged backgrounds as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

Vicky Ford: The Government’s education recovery plan includes £17 million for the Nuffield early language intervention. That excellent evidence-based programme targets reception-age children who need extra support for their language development. It is proven to help children make around three months of additional progress. So far, 40% of primary schools in England have signed up, helping 60,000 children in this academic year.

Geraint Davies: Before the pandemic, 50% of children from disadvantaged backgrounds suffered a speech delay at school entry, and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has found that since  the pandemic children of all ages from disadvantaged backgrounds have particularly suffered from the withdrawal of speech and language support. Will the Minister ensure that extra resources are provided for children of all ages from disadvantaged areas, with both digital and in-person support, so that their life chances are empowered not impaired, and that those in greatest need get greater support? Will she meet me and the royal college to discuss that?

Vicky Ford: In England, schools can use their recovery funding to purchase additional therapies such as speech and language therapies, and I have seen examples of where that has already happened. The funding we have given for recovery has included Barnett consequentials and money going to Wales, and I encourage the Welsh Government to look at the Nuffield early language initiative. Nearly a quarter of a million children have already been screened for it, and it is having real benefits in England. I encourage taking a look at it across the border, as it is a brilliant way to help children.

UK-EU Co-operation and Tutoring Agreement

Caroline Ansell: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of the UK-EU Cooperation and Trade Agreement on (a) higher and (b) further education.

Michelle Donelan: The trade and co-operation agreement is based on co-operation between sovereign equals, centred on free trade and inspired by our shared history and values. The Department discussed the agreement with sector representatives and devolved Administrations, and we will continue to do so through bodies such as the Education Sector Advisory Group.

Alison Thewliss: Thousands of EU academics have already left the UK for the EU, driven away by the UK Government’s hostile environment, the Government’s reckless cuts to funding and in-progress projects, and Brexit uncertainty, with up to 70% more per year leaving for work or study in the EU than at any time before the Brexit referendum. How will the Minister’s Government prevent an even greater brain drain to the EU from UK universities?

Michelle Donelan: The hon. Member touched on a number of points, including workforce and talent within the UK in our universities. Through the introduction of the new skilled worker and global talent route, the UK is actually giving top priority to those with the highest skills and the greatest talents, including researchers, scientists and academics to join our world-leading higher education sector. The global talent route ensures that highly skilled individuals, including scientists and researchers, can come to the UK and make an important contribution.

Funding for Academic Research

Philippa Whitford: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the allocation of Government funding to academic institutions for research.

Michelle Donelan: The Government are investing £14.9 billion on research and development in 2021-22, the highest level for four decades. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provides funding for academic researchers through UK Research and Innovation and the national academies, and published detailed allocations in May. I will continue to work closely with the Minister with responsibility for science, research and innovation, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway).

Philippa Whitford: The UKRI’s global challenges research fund was set up to promote international collaboration on global issues, including climate change and health. However, due to the reduction in overseas aid, the funding promised in 2019 has now been cut in half, causing projects to be cancelled and researchers in low-income countries to be made redundant. In many cases, the last two years of research will be wasted. How will the Minister get academics to commit time and energy in the future, when they cannot trust this Government to honour their commitments?

Michelle Donelan: The changes to the level of official development assistance quality-related funding made available to universities has been applied equally across the four nations of the Union, as the hon. Member will know. The Government’s research ODA spend includes the global challenges research fund, which has been allocated in line with the thematic, rather than geographic, priorities of the strategic framework for UK ODA, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, while prioritising high-value-for-money projects and existing legal commitments. I will be delighted to meet the hon. Member along with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsibility for science, innovation and research to discuss this matter further.

Autistic or Neurodiverse Pupils

Jacob Young: What steps his Department is taking to support autistic or neurodiverse pupils.

Vicky Ford: Alongside the £8 billion high needs budget, we fund the Autism Education Trust, which develops autism awareness training for education staff. Over the past decade, over 300,000 staff have been trained. We have also worked with the Department of Health and Social Care to include children in the autism strategy, which will be published shortly.

Jacob Young: The Mackenzie Thorpe Centre is a school in South Bank which provides autistic and neurodiverse young people from across Redcar and Cleveland with the support they need in their education. It is a great example how local authorities, working in partnership with specialist charities such as the North East Autism Society, can provide this type of enhanced support closer to home. Will the Minister come to Redcar and Cleveland to meet me and the North East Autism Society to see how it can expand its current support and replicate it elsewhere?

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend is a great champion for Redcar and I would certainly be very happy to visit schools in his constituency with him. I just want to take a moment to thank staff and students in schools and special schools all across the country, and to say this to children: “We know it has been such a difficult time, but children please do hold your heads up high. You have done so much. Be proud of all you have achieved during this pandemic.”

Apprenticeships

Cherilyn Mackrory: What steps his Department is taking to increase the number of apprenticeships.

Jack Brereton: What steps his Department is taking to increase the number of apprenticeships.

Gillian Keegan: Apprenticeships are a great way for employers to develop the skills they need to build back better, especially as we recover from the pandemic. We have increased the incentive payment to £3,000 for employers hiring a new apprentice. As of 4 May, 52,719 incentive payments had been claimed. We are also making apprenticeships more flexible, encouraging front-loaded and accelerated training, and introducing new flexi-job apprenticeships. We are also making it easier for levy payers to transfer funds to support new apprenticeships within small and medium-sized enterprises and within their local areas.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I thank the Minister for her answer. Our world-class maritime businesses in Falmouth inform me that there is a shortage of qualified maritime and marine engineers. Will she work with me to see how we can best try to accelerate the hiring and training of such apprentices in this important sector so that marine industries such as the one here in Falmouth and across the UK can thrive and prosper?

Gillian Keegan: I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend on such an important industry for her area. I am also delighted to say that there are over 480 apprenticeship standards approved for delivery that can provide strong support to the marine industry. These include a level 2 apprenticeship in maritime, mechanical and electrical engineering, a level 4 apprenticeship as a maritime operations officer and a level 6 degree apprenticeship as a maritime surveyor, all of which have been supported by expert trailblazers, including the Royal Navy, P&O Ferries and others. It is my hope that we will be able to use these standards and work together to build on the more than 7,000 apprenticeship starts in Truro and Falmouth since May 2010.

Jack Brereton: I thank the Minister for visiting Stoke-on-Trent College last week with my neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent MPs. Only 22.5% of people in Stoke-on-Trent have an NVQ—national vocational qualification—at level 4 or above, so does she agree that increasing the uptake of apprenticeships in Stoke-on-Trent is a key aspect of improving skill levels, supporting local industries and ensuring that more people can access the better-paid employment opportunities that we want to see?

Gillian Keegan: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why I was really delighted to join him and our colleagues—our other Stoke MPs—to visit Stoke-on-Trent College. It was great that we were able to meet students who are on a wide variety of pathways and see the fantastic facilities that our investment has enabled at this brilliant college. There have been nearly 30,000 apprenticeship starts in the Stoke-on-Trent area since May 2010. I encourage learners and employers to take advantage of the support, including the incentive payment of £3,000, and I am sure that he will welcome the establishment of a new Home Office centre that will create more than 500 new roles over five years, with an apprenticeship-first policy for hiring at the entry grades. I agree that they are absolutely vital to the development and economic recovery in Stoke-on-Trent and beyond.

Toby Perkins: I am afraid the Minister just sounds like she is in denial. Between August and January, under-19 apprenticeship starts were 41% lower than they were in 2018-19. We keep telling the Government that their apprenticeship incentives are inadequate, and there has been widespread support for Labour’s apprenticeship wage subsidy proposal. The Conservative Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), has joined those calling for the Government to subsidise the wages of young apprentices and help to tackle this crisis of opportunity. Why will the Minister not work with us and Members right across the House to introduce Labour’s apprenticeship wage subsidy proposal?

Gillian Keegan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not in denial. Perhaps he is forgetting the kickstart scheme, which also subsidises wages for six months for young people. That scheme is live and is going on for the rest of this year. In addition, it may have escaped his notice, perhaps, that many of the sectors have been in lockdown until relatively recently. If we look at apprenticeship starts, we notice that there is an acceleration in those using the incentive payments to get back to work. Of course, the £3,000 that has been provided can be used in any way that the employer wants to use it, including to subsidise wages. So there is a lot of support and I expect that the numbers will continue to increase.

Topical Questions

Tom Hunt: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Gavin Williamson: I thank everyone in the education sector for their dedication throughout the pandemic. Last week, I had the pleasure of watching the Second Reading of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill in the other place. The Bill will legislate for landmark reforms first set out in the skills for jobs White Paper to help to transform post-16 education and training, boost skills and get more people into work, helping us to build back better as we come out of the pandemic.

Tom Hunt: On Friday, I found out about the Diana Award anti-bullying strategy when I visited Gusford Primary School and I had the pleasure of meeting Harrison, a year 5 pupil, and Katie, a year 4 pupil. They are the two anti-bullying ambassadors for Gusford primary.  Single-handedly, the two of them passionately seem to be on the way to stamping out bullying in the whole school and have actually required very little assistance from the teachers. The Diana Award, I understand, is currently awaiting funding and has put in an application to the Department for Education. Will my right hon. Friend confirm here today his commitment to supporting all the work they are doing to tackle and prevent bullying?

Gavin Williamson: It sounds as if amazing work is going on at Gusford Primary School. That has been underpinned by the £3.5 million in funding available to charities and organisations such as the Diana Award. A number of organisations are currently bidding. I am afraid that I am not in a position to confirm which have been successful, but I understand that the Diana Award is one of those that has been bidding for the next tranche of funding.

Tulip Siddiq: Last week, the Early Years Alliance revealed secret Government documents that exposed that Ministers have been knowingly underfunding childcare, childminders and nurseries for years now, knowing full well that that would mean increased childcare costs for parents and lower-quality early education. Bearing in mind that in this year alone there has been a net loss of 2,500 childcare facilities in England, will the Minister apologise for covering this up? Will she explain to the House how she plans to rectify the very serious problem of underfunding in early education?

Vicky Ford: I do wish sometimes that my opposite number would stop scaremongering. We have put unprecedented investment in childcare over the past decade: more than £3.5 billion in each of the past three years. There are always a number of reasons why providers come and go from the register, including mergers and acquisitions. The key thing is whether or not there are sufficient places for children. We monitor the market very closely, and we are continuing to see that there are not a significant number of parents who are unable to secure a childcare place this term or since early years sectors reopened in June.

Andrew Bridgen: Could the Secretary of State update the House on progress on changing A-levels to enable students to apply with known grades rather than predicted grades?

Gavin Williamson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The consultation closed on 13 May and we are looking at the response very closely. We really want to bring post-qualification admissions forward as rapidly as possible. We would like to do so without legislation and in co-operation with the sector, but if we are not able to have that co-operation, we will drive this forward. All the evidence, from the Sutton Trust and from so many others, is clear that PQA helps children from the most disadvantaged families more than any others. That is why we will make it happen.

Margaret Ferrier: Given that the National Fire Chiefs Council, Zurich Municipal and many other stakeholders across the UK have repeatedly called for Ministers to bring  England in line with Scotland and Wales, where sprinklers are compulsory, will the Secretary of State explain under what rationale the Department for Education has chosen to pursue a programme of installing sprinklers only in new schools over 11 metres tall?

Gavin Williamson: We always look at the latest evidence and take the very best guidance. We are very proud of our building programme in schools, in new build and refurbishments, but we always look very closely. As the hon. Lady will be aware, there is some debate as to whether deluge systems or mist systems are best, but we are always guided by the best advice and the best evidence in our school building programme.

Bob Blackman: Our programme of promoting academies and enabling schools and colleges to become academies has been outstandingly successful and very popular. However, there is one section that has not been able to convert: Catholic sixth-form colleges. Will my right hon. Friend enable an amendment to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill to provide an opportunity for Catholic sixth-form colleges to academise with the legal protections that they need?

Gavin Williamson: I am aware of how important this is. We look at all legislative opportunities to see how this can best be done, and we are committed at the earliest opportunity to making it happen. We want to see Catholic sixth-forms in a position to be able to academise, because we have seen the benefits that that can bring to so many schools. I will happily work with my hon. Friend and others to ensure that it happens at the earliest moment.

Rachael Maskell: Will the Secretary of State ensure that, instead of experiencing disruption to a third academic year, universities are able to determine their own return of students in September this year? The University of York and York St John University have advanced plans in place and they do not want to see further delays, including staggered starts. Can they now also have the ability to allow international students to quarantine at their local university?

Michelle Donelan: We have every expectation that by the autumn term we will be able to move forward beyond step 4, meaning that there will be no further restrictions on the provision of in-person teaching and learning. During the pandemic, many providers have developed a digital offering and, as autonomous institutions, they might choose to retain elements of that approach, as well as undertaking risk assessments, but our expectation is clear that universities should maintain the quality, quantity and accessibility of provision. In terms of international students, we have been one of the world’s leaders in our visa concessions and flexibilities. I shall continue to work closely with the Home Office and the Department of Health to ensure that the best interests of students are always maintained, as well as public health.

Henry Smith: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Can the Secretary of State say what particular support is being made available for pupils with dyslexia to help them to catch up following the disruptions caused by the covid-19 pandemic?

Vicky Ford: The £3 billion education recovery interventions are largely targeted towards those children who need the most help. The catch-up and recovery premiums can be used flexibly by schools to support pupils with special educational needs, including those with dyslexia.

Mohammad Yasin: Develop is part of a small not-for-profit organisation in Bedford providing personalised teaching and training to local learners. Many of its 31 students have special educational needs and disabilities and cannot attend a mainstream college, so can the Secretary of State explain why this incredible centre’s Education and Skills Funding Agency funding will be stopped in July and how it is to support its devastated students and families?

Vicky Ford: We have, of course, increased our high needs budget by nearly a quarter over the past two years and put additional funding, through the recovery and catch-up programmes, towards special needs, supporting those children who need to be in special schools and not mainstream schools, but I would be happy to meet the hon. Member and look at the specific case that he has raised.

Philip Davies: Kash Singh came to the United Kingdom aged seven, unable to speak English. He became a popular police inspector in Bradford, and on his retirement he set up OBON—One Britain One Nation—which aims to bring communities, particularly schoolchildren, together under the common cause of being proud of being British and taking pride in British values. OBON Day is on Friday. Will the Secretary of State thank Kash Singh for all his work in this regard, and will he encourage all schools to take part in OBON Day on Friday?

Gavin Williamson: I would very much like to thank Kash Singh for the work he has done on this amazing project, and it is incredibly important that schools take part in it. We have already asked schools to participate, and I am happy to reiterate the endorsement of the project from the Dispatch Box and to encourage them to play their part in it.

Diana R. Johnson: How confident is the Secretary of State that children and young people in the care of local authorities are being protected from grooming gangs, and what discussions has he had with the Home Secretary about what more needs to be done to protect this group of young people?

Gavin Williamson: I have regular discussions with the Home Secretary and across Government on this issue. It is vital that everything is done to address this. I know that this is something that is felt on both sides of the House. We will continue to put in all the resources and all the effort required to tackle this vital issue.

Rob Butler: In the digital age, it is more important than ever that school and college courses reflect the skills needed by employers in the future. Will my hon. Friend outline the steps she and the Department are taking to bring forward new technical qualifications that will ensure that students from Aylesbury, especially at the university technical college and the further education college, are well equipped to meet the demands of the modern economy?

Gillian Keegan: My hon. Friend is right: technical skills and education are vital to our modern economy, and never have we seen that more clearly than during the pandemic. The Conservative Government are encouraging more students into STEM education at all stages, from primary to higher education. We are proud to have rolled out multiple programmes to increase support for and uptake of STEM subjects, including through the National Centre for Computing Education. We are also investing £138 million to fund the roll-out of skills bootcamps across the country and free courses for jobs, through which adults can study for qualifications such as a diploma in networking and cyber-security or a certificate in systems infrastructure. I am delighted that, from September, Buckinghamshire College Group will offer our new employer-designed digital T-level.

Rosie Cooper: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the impact of the last year on teacher retention? What plans does he have to mitigate this and to tempt more new entrants to the teaching profession? Is he considering more grant funding for those who are planning to enter the profession? Will he take some positive steps?

Gavin Williamson: We continue to support recruitment to the teaching profession with an extensive bursary scheme to incentivise people to take up teaching, especially in areas with the greatest shortage. We remain committed to our £30,000 starting salary for teachers, which we recognise is an incredibly compelling offer for many people. Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that last year a record number of people chose to enter the teaching profession, and we expect similar results this year.

Mark Menzies: I thank my right hon. Friend for the recently announced multimillion-pound rebuild of Lytham St Annes High School, but looking to the present, what steps is the Department taking to help school leavers this summer, as they transition into work or higher education following severe disruption to their final two academic years?

Gavin Williamson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who campaigned hard to get the funding to deliver the rebuilding of Lytham St Annes High School for his constituents. We will continue to work with all schools throughout the remainder of this academic year to ensure that there is as much support as possible for students, whether through the recovery premium that schools have been receiving or money made available for summer schools, so that schools can put on additional activities. The further education sector has also been supported to support its pupils, so they can get on and get the best opportunities.

Richard Thomson: The Association of Colleges has accused the UK Government of creating an “education versus work” divide by requiring universal credit claimants to prioritise looking for work over training. How exactly do the Government expect disadvantaged universal credit claimants to train and improve their skills if their financial support is linked to prioritising work over training opportunities?

Gillian Keegan: I will update the hon. Gentleman. We have been working with the Department for Work and Pensions to extend to 12 weeks the time that those who are claiming universal credit can undertake college courses. Anyone who wants to attend one of the boot camps we are rolling out across the country can complete the programme, with up to 16 weeks in total.

Emma Hardy: The Department of Health and Social Care is closing the asymptomatic testing and lateral flow testing facilities at the University of Hull on 31 July, despite the fact that the university remains open during the summer for staff, postgraduates, international students and students who cannot return home, despite the fact that not all students have been double vaccinated, and despite the fact that the number of cases is rising. Will the Minister for Universities intervene urgently and speak to her colleagues at the DHSC to keep testing open at the University of Hull?

Michelle Donelan: As the hon. Member will know, we have worked very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care throughout the pandemic, and the testing offer for students continues to be as accessible as possible. In addition, students can utilise the universal testing offer. I will continue to work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in regard to summer provision as well as autumn provision, and I am happy to meet her to discuss this further.

Peter Kyle: Ministers failed to secure over 90% of the funding called for by Kevan Collins for the catch-up fund, and we have just discovered that 100,000 vulnerable students and disadvantaged students will miss out on the pupil premium because Ministers have failed to secure the funding. Over the weekend, when the Chancellor was asked, he gave the reason why: because he cannot fund every cause that
“comes knocking on my door.”
Do students in this country not deserve a set of Ministers with the skill and determination to get through the front door of the Treasury and come out with the investment that our schools, students and teachers need?

Nick Gibb: We have announced a £1.4 billion education recovery package, which is the third announced in the last 12 months, coming on top of £1 billion announced in June 2020 and £700 million announced in February last year. That £1.4 billion will provide an extra £1 billion for tutoring, which will provide up to 100 million hours of tutoring. That is 6 million 15-hour courses for five to 16-year-olds and 2 million 15-hour courses for 16 to 19-year-olds. This is a huge package. We are now reviewing the time aspect of the recommendations made by Sir Kevan, and that will report into the spending review later this year.

Kate Green: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A few moments ago, the Secretary of State—I am sure inadvertently—in answer to me said that he and the Prime Minister had a plan to roll out tutoring to 6 million children across the country. That is an error that was also made last week by the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. As I am sure the Secretary of State will wish to make clear to the House, the correct figure is 6 million tutoring sessions. That is slightly different.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State want to come back?

Gavin Williamson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. To be absolutely clear, we aim to roll out tutoring for 6 million pupils across the country.

Lindsay Hoyle: Right. That has gone on the record.
I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Sitting suspended.

End-to-end Rape Review

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call the Lord Chancellor, I wish to remind Members that the House’s sub judice resolution means that reference should not be made to any case in which proceedings are active in the United Kingdom courts.

Robert Buckland: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make a statement. I want to put on record my thanks to the Opposition Chief Whip, too, for allowing some valuable Opposition day time.
I would like to make a statement on the Government’s end-to-end rape review report on findings and actions. Rape and sexual assault are some of the most horrific offences dealt with by our criminal justice system. They can leave devastating effects on victims for life. While the majority of victims of rape are women, this crime can have a devastating effect on male victims as well. Over the last five years, we have seen an alarming decline in the number of police referrals, charges, prosecutions and convictions for these sorts of crimes—a trend that the Government are determined to reverse with urgency. I want to pay tribute to the bravery of victims and to commend their courage in coming forward to report these crimes. It is crucial that the system gives all victims the reassurance that they will be believed and that they will receive the right support, right from the moment they report their crime through to the conclusion of their case and beyond.
In March 2019, the national criminal justice board commissioned the first ever end-to-end review of how the criminal justice system handles rape cases. The rape review report and action plan outlines how we will act on its findings to deliver much needed improvements, building confidence in the system and encouraging more victims to come forward. That will enable cases that are better prepared from the start, more prosecutions of rapes, greater encouragement of early guilty pleas, and fair and timely trials. This has been a collaborative effort between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Attorney General’s Office—I am grateful to the Solicitor General for being here today—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which is something that we believe will be crucial to its long-term success. Alongside the action plan, a Government social research report outlining the underlying primary research in detail is also being published. I have laid that report before the House.[Official Report, 5 July 2021, Vol. 698, c. 8MC.]
Our action plan sets out a robust and ambitious programme of work to improve the way in which the criminal justice system responds to rape at every stage in the process, so that victims are better supported to get the justice they deserve and so that all our constituents can have confidence that perpetrators of these sickening crimes will be rightly punished. As the House will know, this has been a priority area for Government for some time, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the work already done, alongside the new actions that we are committed to delivering in the implementation of the review.
We appreciate that this is not the first piece of work in this area of criminal justice, and that both victims and stakeholder groups want change to happen as  quickly as possible. The Government could not agree more, which is why the Minister for Crime and Policing will be personally pushing this work forward, and the Government will publish updates every six months detailing progress to ensure clear accountability. That will include scorecards monitoring progress against key metrics, including timeliness and victim engagement in each part of the system, and implementation of the action plan. Our ambition is for the volume of cases referred by the police for charging decisions and reaching court to return to 2016 levels by the end of this Parliament.
One of the key themes of the review is how we can create the conditions that will enable effective joint working between the police and CPS. It launched its joint action plan in January this year. That will enable both the police and CPS to work hand in glove to support rape victims and to secure convictions. In the implementation phase of the review, we plan to introduce joint decision-making guidance for CPS and police investigation teams that will be implemented as part of a necessary culture change. We will also build on the shared learning and development in the form of training and guidance around trauma, to develop understanding of its effect on victims right across the system. In the next 24 months, we will have a framework for a new operating model that can be adopted by forces nationally.
A key plank of our work to transform the way in which cases are dealt with is the pathfinder programme known as Operation Soteria, which is being launched to drive systemic and sustainable transformation in how the police and CPS handle investigations into rape and sexual offences. I am pleased to say that we have already begun to transform the support provided to victims by publishing a revised victims code, which sets out 12 clearly defined rights. We have invested record amounts in support over the last 18 months, including spending more than £70 million on rape and domestic abuse services in 2020-21 and £27 million on the expansion of the independent sexual violence adviser service—the ISVA service.
I accept that more needs to be done to reform support services to meet current and rising demand, and ISVAs play a crucial role. Research suggests that their involvement in the criminal justice system can make a victim 49% more likely to stay engaged and see their complaint through to its conclusions. With that in mind, we will shortly consult on a statutory underpinning for the ISVA role as part of the forthcoming victims Bill consultation. The police and CPS will work together to introduce minimum standards on how to communicate with ISVAs after a complaint is made, throughout the investigation process, through charging decisions and through court proceedings themselves. This will be done through a national framework to ensure that standards improve right across the country.
We are also committed to ensuring that no victim is left without a means of communicating through an extremely traumatic period in their life, which is why we are working to increase the capacity of the frontline technology used to examine digital devices. We will work with the mobile phone technology industry to support police efforts to provide swap-out phones for victims to use when their own devices are unavailable. Our ambition is that no victim will be left without a phone for more than 24 hours.
We recognise that the court experience can be particularly distressing. Last year, we rolled out section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to help support children and vulnerable adult victims and witnesses to give their evidence and be cross-examined sensitively. We are already piloting the same arrangements for intimidated witnesses and victims in three locations, and plan to increase that pilot to three additional courts. Subject to that evaluation, we aim to commence full roll-out to all Crown courts for this group, and will consider whether any further legislative change is needed. We also plan to test the use of section 28 in the youth court.
We will continue to explore how we can increase the use of special measures in rape trials, and will develop a best practice framework for rape and sexual violence cases during court proceedings. Additionally, we have asked the Law Commission to explore the use of rape myths and evidence about victim credibility at court to see whether there are changes we can make there to improve the experience for victims and give them the opportunity to present their best evidence. In addition, the CPS has updated its legal guidance to address rape myths and stereotypes.
We will go further than the work outlined in the review; later this year, we will publish a new strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, and we will consult on the new victims Bill. I am sure that the whole House will join me in acknowledging the many people and organisations who are working tirelessly to improve the way in which these cases are handled. I thank the organisations in this field. Their expertise, research and challenge is invaluable. I am incredibly grateful to Emily Hunt in particular, who has been working as an expert adviser on the rape review, and ensured that the voice of victims was heard loud and clear as the Government considered their approach.
I reassure the House that if the proposed actions do not yield sufficient change in the timescales that we have set out, the Government are prepared to look at more fundamental changes to the criminal justice system, including measures to strengthen accountability and governance more widely. The review represents just the beginning of this work. We must continue to challenge the entire system to deliver urgent and sustained change. We owe that to every victim of these terrible crimes. Every part of the system can and must do better; now is the time for it to deliver. I commend this statement to the House.

David Lammy: Last week, the Secretary of State took the bold step of saying that he was “sorry” and “deeply ashamed” for how he and his Government had failed rape victims. “Sorry” is a word that we do not hear often in this House, and we certainly do not hear it enough. It is, frankly, a difficult word for politicians to say, but when a politician says sorry, it means they are taking responsibility and expressing regret for mistakes that have caused large swathes of the public to suffer.
The Secretary of State was right to apologise, but his apology has been made meaningless by his attempt to avoid taking responsibility over the weekend. Under his watch, the conviction and prosecution rates for rapists  have fallen to a record low. In the year 2016-17, there were 41,616 rapes recorded in England and Wales—a third less than currently—and there were 5,090 prosecutions and 2,991 convictions. In 2019-20, the most recent year for which we have available data, the police recorded 55,130 rapes but there were only 2,102 prosecutions and 1,439 convictions. Rape convictions and prosecutions more than halved in just a few years, even despite the number of recorded rapes having rocketed upwards.
It is impossible to separate those appalling statistics from the decade of Conservative cuts that have accompanied them. Funding for the Ministry of Justice has fallen by 25% since 2010. When asked by the BBC whether the removal of funding for legal services was linked to the downward trends, the Secretary of State admitted that that is “self-evidently the case.” Ten years of cuts to the courts, legal aid, police and the Crown Prosecution Service have created an environment in which victims are denied justice and criminals are let off the hook. The Lord Chancellor swore an oath
“to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”;
clearly, he has failed.
After we have waited two years for the review to be published, its recommendations do not go far enough. Despite the Secretary of State’s having admitted that his funding cuts helped to cause the crisis, almost no new funding at all is announced in the review. The review lumps in spending on domestic violence and rape as a headline to misrepresent the truth; the reality is that the vast majority of the funding for refuge accommodation—which is of course vital—has nothing to do with increasing rape prosecutions or convictions. The only mention of new funding is the £4 million over two years for independent sexual violence advisers. That equates to £15 per rape victim for a year. Does the Secretary of State really think that is enough funding to address the failings that the report sets out?
The review mentions the pre-recording of evidence for intimidated victims, which is a vital reform, but why are the Government re-piloting the scheme for a further two years when they have piloted it twice already? Does the Secretary of State doubt that the current two-to-three-year waiting list to get a rape case to court is leading to many dropping out? Why are the Government not funding specialist units for rape cases throughout the country? The pilot in Avon and Somerset has been successful, but the Government are going to roll it out for only one year, among just four more police forces—more piecemeal pilots and nowhere near enough funding and long-term commitment to make any real impact. We know the problems, we have the answers and the technology is in place—what is the hold-up?
As the Opposition spokesman, it is my job to hold the Secretary of State to account. For his apology to have meaning, it needs accountability alongside it. In their rape review, the Government outline their commitment to return the volume of cases being referred by the police and charged by the Crown Prosecution Service and then going to court to at least
“2016 levels by the end of this Parliament.”
We in the Opposition said that by the end of this Parliament is not good enough. Rape victims cannot be forced to wait another three years for conviction and prosecution levels to return to 2016 levels. We demanded  that the Secretary of State met the target within a year, but, bafflingly, his response was to describe such a target as “constitutionally illiterate”. We know that this failure affects several Departments. We know that the Crown Prosecution Service is independent, with oversight by the Attorney General’s office. We know that the police are overseen by the Home Office. But we also know that the health of the justice system as a whole has a huge impact on the likelihood of a victim pressing charges, the police charging a suspect and a conviction being secured. Victims are facing delays because of the Justice Department’s cuts to the courts and legal aid, and it is because of those delays that 44% of rape victims are pulling out of the justice system altogether.
In describing such a target as constitutionally illiterate, the Secretary of State suggested that the record low prosecution and conviction rates for rapes were out of his hands. That runs counter to his previous apology in which he took responsibility for them. Does he, or does he not, take responsibility for this Government’s hollowing out of the justice system? If not, does he intend to take his apology back? Do the Government intend to meet their target of returning the number of rapists who face justice to 2016 levels, or have they done a U-turn and scrapped that target?
The Secretary of State cannot show disdain for the constitution whenever it suits him and then blame the constitution when he is trying to defend his own failings. Enough is enough. Will he reverse these failures within a year, or will he resign?

Lindsay Hoyle: This is a very, very important subject and it is quite right that we are having this statement, but there are other Members besides those on the Front Benches whom I need to hear from. It is important to all colleagues to get on the record, so please, whether we are talking about the Minister or the shadow Minister, we must stick to the time that the House has agreed to. It is not what I have agreed to, but what the House and Members have signed up to. Please, let us ensure that everybody gets a fair chance.

Robert Buckland: I am mindful of your stricture, Mr Speaker.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman very firmly about what I said? I rightly took responsibility and apologised for the overall failure that has led us to this situation. I do that as somebody who is politically responsible; I accept that without any qualification. I accept as well that resources are a matter for the Government, and I explained that, in the context of what we were left with, decisions were made back in 2010 that did indeed result in reductions. None the less, he will know as well that the issue with regard to the prosecution of rapes is not just about resources. It is about culture. It is about the way in which victims have, for far too long, been the focus of all attention. I know he agrees that that is inappropriate and that it is time for a much more perpetrator-focused approach.
When we calmly look at the figures for rape prosecutions over the past 10 or 15 years, we will see an encouraging rise from 2010 to about the middle of the decade, then a sustained improvement until about 2017-18, and then this very concerning decline that I have rightly acknowledged.  That in itself tells us that something has happened here with regard to the way in which these cases are approached, and that has caused huge concern. There was a judicial review case about it that we are familiar with, which was hotly disputed between the Crown Prosecution Service and the sector, and, rightly, we waited for that to be concluded before we published this review. I say again to him what I said yesterday, which is that to in any way suggest that an increase in prosecutions and the bringing of cases should be linked to the fate or otherwise of a politician is constitutionally illiterate, dangerous, and the sort of approach that could lead to allegations of improper pressure being put on independent prosecutors.
I wonder whether, before he issued his public pronouncement, the right hon. Gentleman cleared it with his own boss. I can imagine the scene: me, as Lord Chancellor, speaking to the Director of Public Prosecutions in a way that would have crossed the line with regard to his prosecutorial independence; of course, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was the DPP, and I am pretty sure about the answer that I would have got from him. I think that the silence of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter speaks volumes.

Bob Neill: This is a very important statement, and the Lord Chancellor knows that when he makes a bid for further funding for the justice system, there is compelling evidence from the Justice Committee’s evidence sessions to support that. In relation to the current issue, does he agree that one of the most striking figures is that of 52,000 cases reported as rapes or serious sexual offences, only 2,700 found their way to the Crown Prosecution Service, which has a high percentage of then charging? Does he agree that it is critical that the evidence file is available to the Crown Prosecution Service and that victims and complainants are treated sensitively? Can we find out more about what happened to the other 50,000 that never even made it to the stage of being considered by the CPS?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is right to point out the significant difference between the number of complaints that are made and the number of cases that reach their way to court. I have long harboured deep concerns about those early stages in the investigative process when a complainant or a victim comes forward with a complaint and then is made to make some very difficult choices, most notably about handing over a mobile phone. A young woman’s life will be on that phone. What replacement is she going to have, and how is she going to manage without such an important device? Very often that sort of Manichean choice is given, which is wholly wrong. That is why I think at the early stages of the investigation we need to do more to support victims, which is why I regard the investment in ISVAs as key to making sure that we can make a difference and reduce that cliff edge. I want to consult further on other aspects of support that we can give victims at the earliest stage to make sure that, when it comes to disclosure, the rights of victims are protected just as much as the rights of the accused.

Harriet Harman: I welcome the fact that the Justice Secretary has acknowledged the woeful failure of the justice system to  protect women and girls from the abhorrent crime of rape. Will he recognise that one of the things that deters victims from supporting a prosecution is that, when it comes to trial, it is they who are put in the dock by having their sexual history being dragged out and being made the focus of the trial, instead of the focus being on the defendant and what he actually did? Will he address this by backing the new clauses that have been put forward on a cross-party basis to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will ensure that the defendants’ previous sexual history is only ever brought up in court when there has been a previous application to the judge, who has ruled that it is relevant to the particular issue on trial?

Robert Buckland: May I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Lady for her tireless work in this area? Indeed, she and I have regular dialogue about these issues and have done in the past. I will say several things in response. First, it is vital that existing protections are properly policed and used by the courts when it comes to restrictions on wholly inappropriate cross-examination. I have in particular asked the Law Commission to look at the whole issue about the trial process, and the rape myth issue that is still a real concern for many people who end up taking part in this process. But I will say this to her: I think it begins much earlier. I think the undue focus on the victim begins right from the initial investigation, and I think that that is wrong. I think that the proper emphasis in this report is about looking at the person who is alleged to have done it, rather than constantly focusing, as she rightly says, on irrelevant previous sexual matters that have nothing to do with the case and are an unwarranted intrusion into the private life of victims.

Sara Britcliffe: It is absolutely vital that there is a focus on offender behaviour rather than victim credibility, which is and will have been a significant factor as to why victims fear coming forward. The steps being taken on ensuring victims and witnesses can pre-record video evidence is welcome, but what will be done to extend this to all the courts so that all victims and witnesses can have access to this?

Robert Buckland: I thank my hon. Friend, and I say this: we have already rolled out the section 28 provisions to cover intimidated witnesses, many of whom will of course themselves have been the victims of sexual offences. We are going further: we are working very hard with the judiciary to pilot more use of the pre-recorded cross-examination technology in the case of intimidated witnesses. I have indicated that I will be prepared to legislate, if necessary, to ensure that we can fulfil the scale of my ambition, but I have to work closely with the judiciary to ensure that the operational realities—listing pressures and the sheer way in which we can accommodate these hearings—are fully taken into account as well.

Wera Hobhouse: It is of course vital that the charging and prosecution of rape cases improves dramatically, so that rapists are put in prison and survivors get justice, but we also need to stop rape and other forms of violence against women and girls happening in the first place, and that requires a cultural change across our society—all men and boys must understand that violence, harassment and abuse of women and girls  is unacceptable. Does the Secretary of State agree that that cultural change must include making misogyny a hate crime, so that it is treated as severely as crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred, as well as better age-appropriate relationships and sex education in schools?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes some extremely relevant points and gets to the heart of the issue when it comes to the need to reduce the number of victims in the first place. I was very glad to hear her reference to the curriculum. A lot of work has been done to expand the curriculum on sex education and healthy relationships, and I pay tribute to the work not only of teachers, but of third sector groups that are campaigning actively to improve the quality of that provision. She will be glad to know that the violence against women and girls strategy, which was reopened in the wake of the appalling Sarah Everard killing, has received hundreds of thousands of responses. That is going to be the heart of the Government’s approach to prevention in order to achieve the goal that she and I share.

David Davis: Most rape victims feel unable to pursue their case because they feel disbelieved or judged. That was highlighted in the DSD and NBV v. Met police in 2018. The words of DSD, who was a victim of John Worboys, were:
“The police made me feel that I’d made it all up.”
It meant that Worboys was able to go on and carry out 100 more rapes of women. The other victim, NBV, said that the police
“asked me whether I’d describe myself as a young lady who would wear red nail polish and red lipstick. They asked me how often I would go out drinking…The way they behaved made me feel like anything that had happened to me was because I deserved it.”
The behaviour of the police in this case is a stark demonstration of why so many victims give up, yet the Metropolitan Police Commissioner rebutted the case, saying that it made their job too difficult. Frankly, unless the senior management of the Met and other large police forces show a willingness to change and learn from these cases, I am afraid we will need to look for new senior management.

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend has very graphically illustrated some of the appalling experiences that many complainants and victims have undergone, and that is very much at the core of this review. We need to move away from the fixation with the credibility or believing of the victim and be much more about the perpetrator. If someone’s house is burgled, they do not expect to have a long trawl into their personal history and whether they had left an upstairs window unlocked or whether they had been drinking; it is about trying to find out who did it and who is responsible for the crime. It is that sort of approach that we need in rape and serious sexual offending.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The prevalence of rape myths and the lack of understanding of consent are known to act as barriers to justice for rape victims, and the Lord Chancellor rightly mentions the need for culture change. Will he therefore commit to bringing forward a strategy to provide training for the investigation of rape and alleged rape complaints, not only for the judiciary but for all jury members hearing such prosecutions?

Robert Buckland: The right hon. Lady is quite right to ask about the trial process. I think she knows that my fundamental view about this is that things go wrong well before cases get to court and that the gap between complaint and prosecution is the real problem. However, I fully take on board what she says. She will note that in the review we have committed to look very carefully—in fact, I have already asked the Law Commission to do this—at, to coin a phrase, the rape myth issue, to see whether the existing provisions are strong enough. I know that rape myths are already being challenged daily in our courts, but we want to look at whether more can be done, particularly on issues such as the assumption that a rape victim has to have some injury or bruising, which is clearly a misconception. A lot more can be done to dispel that myth with more comprehensive, perhaps medical evidence from the prosecution, but I look forward to working with the right hon. Lady, as I always do, on these important issues.

Simon Fell: We know that all too often rape is committed by someone the victim knows. Because of that, investigations are incredibly hard to progress and are incredibly intrusive for the victim as well. Many victims disengage from the process, which means that we cannot move those cases forward. My right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement on ISVAs is therefore incredibly welcome, but improving criminal justice outcomes will be difficult without a substantial increase in their numbers and their capacity. What measures will he put in place to do that and improve outcomes for victims?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to focus on the need for early support for victims. As I said in my statement, the evidence is clear that an ISVA can reduce quite dramatically the number of victims who drop their case. The funding that I have put in place will allow us to recruit an extra 700 ISVAs, and we will go further than that in the victims’ law consultation by creating a statutory framework within which the work of ISVAs can be recognised and a national standard set, to ensure a consistent approach across England and Wales.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Affairs Committee will take evidence on the Government’s response from the Victims’ Commissioner, Emily Hunt, who advised the review, Imkaan and Rape Crisis on Wednesday. In 2014-15, I raised serious concerns with the Government about the drop in rape arrests at that time, which were already falling, and also warned about the hollowing out of specialist police teams and specialist prosecution teams working on rape, with fears for the consequences. However, none of us would have anticipated quite how far the numbers of prosecutions would then plummet. Can the Lord Chancellor tell me what assessment he has made of the number of specialist police officers and specialist prosecutors working in specialist rape teams and how it compares with five years ago, and if he has not, why not?

Robert Buckland: I take on board the proper points of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not have specific figures to hand, but I can tell her that the RASSO—rape and serious sexual offence—units have been working for a number of years, from right back before 2014, bringing the police and the CPS together. I  think a couple of things combined to make the figures so alarming. Most notably, there were a number of cases towards the end of 2017—such as the Liam Allan case, which we remember—where there was a genuine concern on the part of those representing accused people that somehow there was an issue with disclosure and that disclosure was not being done properly and thoroughly. That has long been a concern of mine, and I initiated work as Solicitor General to improve the way in which the disclosure was effected. I think that has had a chilling effect upon the approach to many cases.
I do not think it is right for me to apportion blame to anybody—far from it—but there is no doubt that we need to move away from the swinging pendulum—either the perception that it is swinging too far in the direction of too many cases being brought without evidence, or too far the other way, where only the safest cases are being brought and not enough is being done in respect of the volume.
I will take on board the right hon. Lady’s points about arrests. I think she will be encouraged by the review, which is a clarion call for a change in culture and in a way that the police in particular deal with the early stages of the investigation, but I will be happy to engage further with her on the detail.

Alberto Costa: Following the John Worboys outrage, the Secretary of State was given the authority, through the reconsideration mechanism, to request that the Parole Board reconsider certain decisions. He does not need to apply the same high threshold as in judicial review grounds of law to deem a case irrational. I welcome the future root-and-branch review of the Parole Board, but will the Secretary of State confirm that he will stand by his welcome numerous references to being firm on those who commit the most egregious sexual offences and murders against women, and will he refer the appalling decision to release double child rapist and killer Colin Pitchfork back to the Parole Board?

Robert Buckland: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s assiduous campaigning on this most grave and disturbing case. The decision to reconsider is one that I am looking at very carefully. I am taking the fullest advice and will make an announcement within the 21-day period, which will be very soon.

John Cryer: The Justice Secretary’s statement referred to rolling out the pilot to all Crown courts, but we all know that it will be rolled out immediately to only nine Crown courts out of 70-odd. On the basis that during the two years that it took to publish the review, there were 100,000 reported rapes, at what point will he reach every Crown court in the country?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman is right to press me on speed. I remind him that the decision to publish the rape review now was made in the light of a very important judicial review that was mounted by representatives of the sector; I listened to their representations and quite rightly waited for the outcome of that important case before publishing. However, I take the point. I am as anxious as he is to get on with things, but in respect of the section 28 roll-out I have to work hand in glove with  the judiciary, who are operationally responsible: for example, a listing of a section 28 remote cross-examination will take some time in the court day. We have seen some really good examples in which it is working well, but I am listening very carefully to the judiciary’s observations about how it can be rolled out fully. I will push as hard as I can to achieve my personal ambition to see section 28 become the norm. Through the scorecard mechanism that we are introducing, we will be held accountable at regular intervals and he will have an opportunity to press me if he does not think that it is going fast enough.

Jeremy Wright: I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. As he recognises, what is done in the preparation of a case matters at least as much as what is said in court, so I urge him to link closely the work that the Government are already doing on disclosure with the work that he has described this afternoon. However, as he also knows, what is said in court matters too. To reinforce the point that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) made, if we are to ensure that rape myths are properly challenged, will the Justice Secretary make sure that in his conversations with the judiciary he looks carefully at the judicial directions given to juries, and that if they need further refinement, they get it?

Robert Buckland: I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend, who as Attorney General worked very hard with me on the issue of disclosure and started the process that resulted in the revised Attorney General’s guidelines issued last year. He and I both know from our professional experience that a badly prepared and badly run case, in terms of disclosure, can be extremely destructive and frankly a miserable experience for those involved. He will be glad to know that we are not only pledging to ensure that victims’ phones are returned after no more than 24 hours, but working on new technology to ensure that analysis of data can happen that much more quickly. We want to ensure that 10,000 devices are examined through the year, rather than being left for months and months before the investigation can be taken further. On the court process, he will be glad to know of my decision to ask the Law Commission to look at some of the enduring issues surrounding the trial process, which I think will address many of his observations.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I was disheartened to hear that there are an estimated 128,000 victims of rape a year and that the reason that the figure is estimated is that less than 20% of victims of rape report to the police. Will the Secretary of State outline whether funding will be available to provide greater training for the first port of call in finding justice—the first police officer called to the scene—to help them to have a greater understanding of the needs of a rape victim in the first instance? Does he intend to provide additional funding for police forces throughout the UK to ensure that there are highly trained support-giving officers on every shift in every police district in every part of the United Kingdom?

Robert Buckland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I rightly have to speak about England and Wales as a jurisdiction, but I know these issues cover all three jurisdictions. There are plenty of examples of  good practice where suitably trained police officers do that sort of work. We want to ensure greater consistency, and over and above the combined CPS-police working, I want more external scrutiny, in particular examining and looking at cases to ensure that all necessary evidence has been gathered, rather than the case being dropped. That aspect of challenging and testing the evidence will be an important plank of what I hope will be an increased number of cases. This is about confidence, and all Members of the House want to give those who have suffered at the hands of perpetrators the confidence they need to come forward. I accept that confidence has taken a huge hit in the last few years, and I hope that through my acknowledgement of that, and my willingness to take action—something I know is supported by Members across the House—we can start to grow confidence and improve that vital trust.

Katherine Fletcher: I hear many times from friends and constituents the perception that if someone is a victim of crime, a rape, coming forward and reporting that will be painful—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made that point. People feel they will not be trusted, and there is a barrier because people are not even coming forward to achieve the possibility of justice. How will the Lord Chancellor hold the system to account for the actions to which his Government have committed, to ensure that the report is delivered on, and those barriers broken down?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right to ask how we will measure this process; the scorecards, the data metrics, that will be published later this year will be a crucial way to do that. They will consider things such as victim engagement, the quality of files being processed, and the overall impact that that is having on the system. Those data will be an invaluable public source of accountability. I am prepared to go further. If we do not see the outcomes that I set out, we will of course have to look again at accountability issues. Given the excellent way that my hon. Friend opened her question, she will be glad to know that the CPS is in the process of developing new guidance for pre-trial therapy, counselling and support, with the aim of ensuring that victims get the support they need in a way that does not undermine or diminish the quality of their evidence. That could be a vital step forward for victims.

Mary Foy: Darlington and County Durham’s rape and sexual abuse counselling centre is working with around 300 survivors. We know that 44% of rape victims pull out of the justice system before their day in court, and most never come forward to the police at all, with trauma being a major reason for that. What measures has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that sustainable funding for the mental wellbeing and support of victims is available at every point on the pathway to justice, and beyond?

Robert Buckland: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I pay tribute to the work being done by agencies in Durham. As she rightly points out, that is an example of the very good practice we see in various parts of our country. She will be glad to note the increased funding that I announced for ISVAs, and our intention to go further in the victims’ law consultation to create a national statutory framework. She is right to  press the issue of expenditure and funding, and in the past two years my Department has achieved, year-on-year, 5% increases in revenue funding. In the next spending review I intend to make a strong case for the need to ensure that the rape review, and its ambition, is met with results.

Mark Fletcher: I have spoken to victims who were actually treated well by the police—they were looked after—but when the Crown Prosecution Service became involved, it all fell apart. What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to improve collaboration between the police and the CPS so that victims get the full support that they need?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend rightly identifies the breakdown that can sometimes occur when one agency passes over responsibility to another. That should not be happening. There are plenty of examples where there is better practice, but it should be uniform. That is why, in the report, we place heavy emphasis on joint working between the police and the CPS to create a much more seamless approach to the support for victims. Victims find that if they have one main point of contact who is with them throughout the process, that makes things somewhat easier compared with the experience of others. That is a very important principle when it comes to the support that victims deserve. The victims code will, and does already with its improvements, set out fundamental and clear rights, and we will go further by enshrining those in legislation.

Peter Kyle: The review that the Secretary of State has presented quotes victims as reporting that the withdrawal of services in recent years has played a crucial part in their failure to secure a prosecution. He has said in the media in recent days that the lack of investment and the cuts in recent years have played a part in the fall in prosecutions, so if disinvestment in parts of the criminal justice system is part of the problem, why has he presented a plan to Parliament that includes almost no reinvestment in the system?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, again, I pay tribute to the work that he has done on victims’ issues. Even though he has other responsibilities, I know that he will want to engage in the ongoing victims’ law consultation. I readily acknowledge some of the pressures and financial issues that have led to some services not being there, but some services were not even there in the first place. The number of ISVAs in the country is too low and that has historically been the case. I want to see not a return to a previous number but a new departure in the scale of support for victims. He will note the funding that I announced this year, which I want to follow up: I will continue to make the point and make the case that we need a sustained improvement in services to see long-term results. The hon. Gentleman’s voice is being heard.

Edward Leigh: None of what has been said so far is going to get us very far. It is absolutely intimidating for a woman—an alleged victim of rape—to have to go through a traditional court procedure. Can we not think, in really radical terms, of  replacing this confrontational system with something more like the family courts? In the context of alleged rape, it is quite right that the victim has anonymity, but if the perpetrator had anonymity as well—if the case was not going forward in a blaze of local or national publicity—we might actually get closer to the truth.

Robert Buckland: My right hon. Friend posits a very interesting point about the merits of perhaps a more inquisitorial or consensual system than the adversarial system, but I remind him—of course, he was a practitioner as well—that allegations of a criminal nature have to meet a high standard of proof, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution in these cases. There is no getting away from that, which is why, progressively over the years, we have done everything we can to improve and to allow the best evidence to come forward from complainants through the use of special measures, remote technology and, indeed, the TV link, which has been around for 30 years. I want to go further with regard to that and make sure that evidence can be dealt with as early as possible. I will no doubt have further discussions about this issue with him, but at this stage I believe that we can seek improvement through the existing system while, as I say, dealing with some of the unfortunate consequences to which he rightly alludes.

Joanna Cherry: This review applies to England and Wales only, but Scotland faces similar challenges. In 2009 I was privileged to be one of the first specialist sex crimes prosecutors in Scotland’s national sex crimes unit, and I am looking to its work being rejuvenated under the leadership of the Lord Advocate, my very dear friend Dorothy Bain QC. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it is imperative for data accuracy, and for trust in official statistics, in public policy, in media reporting and in research and public bodies that the sex of those directly charged with rape or attempted rape is accurately recorded?

Robert Buckland: I join the hon. and learned Lady in her remarks about the Scottish system. I congratulate the new Lord Advocate and look forward to meeting her. As I have always said to the hon. and learned Lady, there is much that we can learn from the Scots and, I know, much that the Scots learn from England and Wales with regard to the prosecution of offences. [Interruption.] Oh, she must readily accept that. We were far ahead of the Scots with regard to rules on corroboration, for example. But it is not a competition; it is all about us learning jointly as part of our United Kingdom. With regard to the accurate reporting of gender, clearly the definition of rape itself will tell us about the sex of the perpetrator. That, in itself, should be the clearest indicator of the sex of the person who perpetrates these crimes. No doubt she and I will talk about this matter further. I think I know the drift of her question.

Siobhan Baillie: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that our lives are on our phones. Access to people who can give us comfort on our phones is greatly needed when going through a period of trauma, as are some of the victims of rape coming forward to the police. Can he give us more information about what he is doing to ensure that the ambition that phones will not be separated from victims for more than 24 hours will be achieved, and give us the timeline for that as well?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as a practitioner in the law, dealt with, in a family context, many of the consequences of serious sexual abuse. She will see that the report does include direct reference to our ambition to return phones within 24 hours, or to provide a swap-around service so that if the phone cannot be handed back, then a substitute will be given. However, this needs to go further with regard to investment in analytics. That is why this year I shall host a tech summit to bring together the sector in a way that can only lead to enhancements in the speed and quality of data analysis, because she is quite right that we need to improve that experience quickly.

Lindsay Hoyle: I now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.

Bills Presented

Eleanor Laing: We now come to the presentation of Bills. As the House can see—I do not think I have seen this many people in the Chamber for a very long time—we have a good many Bills to be presented today. In order to save time and to get on with today’s main business, for Members presenting more than one consecutive Bill, I will accept private notice of the dates of Second Reading for those Bills. These dates will be minuted accordingly in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings. For Members presenting individual Bills, they will name the date for Second Reading as usual.

Registers of Births and Deaths

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Saqib Bhatti presented a Bill to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 34).

Mental Health Provision  (Children and Young People)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Munira Wilson presented a Bill to require the Government to report annually to Parliament on mental health provision for children and young people.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 35).

Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Carol Monaghan, supported by Martin Docherty-Hughes, Patrick Grady, Anum Qaisar-Javed, David Linden, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Stuart C McDonald, Anne McLaughlin, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Chris Stephens, Alison Thewliss and Owen Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 36).

Miniature Mobile Phones (Prohibition of Sale)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sarah Atherton presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of miniature mobile phones; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 37).

Domestic Building Works  (Consumer Protection)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mark Garnier, supported by Mr Steve Baker, Anthony Mangnall, David Morris, Kelly Tolhurst, Caroline Nokes, Jake Berry, Emma Hardy and Fleur Anderson, presented a Bill to make provision about consumer protection in relation to domestic building works; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 38).

Unsolicited Explicit Images And Deepfake Pornography

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angela Richardson presented a Bill to create the offences of sending unsolicited explicit digital images and of producing digitally-altered images or videos in which an individual is depicted pornographically without their consent; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 39).

Local Authority Boundaries (Referendums)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Robbie Moore, supported by Philip Davies, presented a Bill to make provision to enable parliamentary constituency areas to form new unitary local authority areas if agreed by referendum; to make provision for such referendums; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 40).

Approved Premises (Substance Testing)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Rob Butler presented a Bill to make provision about substance testing in approved premises and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 41).

Prime Minister (Temporary Replacement)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision for the carrying out of the functions of the Prime Minister in the event that a Prime Minister, or a person temporarily carrying out the functions of the Prime Minister, is incapacitated; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 42).

British Goods (Public Sector Purchasing Duty)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to place a duty on public bodies to have a presumption in favour of purchasing goods of British origin in purchasing decisions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 43).

Covid-19 Vaccine Damage

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an independent review of disablement caused by Covid-19 vaccinations and the adequacy of the compensation offered to persons so disabled; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 44).

Employment Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Martin Docherty-Hughes, supported by Chris Stephens, presented a Bill to make provision about the rights of workers, including to negotiate pay and join trade unions  and employee associations; to amend the definition of worker; to make provision about the employment rights of members of the armed forces; to make provision about employee representatives on company boards; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 45).

Corporate Homicide Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to make provision about the offence of corporate homicide; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 46).

Public Advocate Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Maria Eagle, supported by Sir George Howarth, Derek Twigg, Alison McGovern, Dame Angela Eagle, Peter Dowd, Bill Esterson, Conor McGinn, Dan Carden, Ian Byrne, Paula Barker and Kim Johnson, presented a Bill to establish a public advocate to provide advice to, and act as data controller for, representatives of the deceased after major incidents.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 47).

Paternity (Leave and Pay) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gareth Davies presented a Bill to extend eligibility for paternity leave and pay; to make provision for more flexibility in the timing of, and notice period for, paternity leave; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 48).

Goods Delivery Services Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Jamie Stone presented a Bill to regulate charges for, and the advertising of, goods delivery services; to make provision about transport infrastructure in remote areas to promote the use of goods delivery services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 49).

Public Bodies (Representation from Devolved Nations) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to require the Government to have regard to the desirability of boards of public bodies including at least one person with relevant experience in at least one of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 50).

Education Employment (Accompaniment to Hearings) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Brendan Clarke-Smith, supported by Andrew Lewer, Andrew Percy, Caroline Ansell, Damian Hinds, Jonathan Gullis, Jim Shannon, Robert Halfon, Scott Benton,  Selaine Saxby, Tim Loughton and Virginia Crosby, presented a Bill to provide that teachers and other education staff may choose to be accompanied to disciplinary or grievance hearings by a person other than a trade union representative or colleague; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 51).

Clean Air Targets (World Health Organization Guidelines) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Christine Jardine presented a Bill to require United Kingdom clean air targets to comply with World Health Organization guidelines; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on that compliance; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 52).

Energy Pricing Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Martyn Day, supported by Margaret Ferrier, Marion Fellows, John Mc Nally, Ronnie Cowan and Douglas Chapman, presented a Bill to prohibit the practice of offering preferential energy tariffs to new customers compared to existing customers; to place further restrictions on energy pricing; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 53).

Commercial Rent (Prohibition of Upward-Only Reviews) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Sarah Olney presented a Bill to prohibit the use of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial rent agreements; to nullify existing such clauses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 54).

City of Bradford (Referendum on Shipley and Keighley)Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Philip Davies, supported by Robbie Moore, presented a Bill to make provision for a district-wide referendum in the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council area on the continued inclusion of the areas covered by the Shipley and Keighley parliamentary constituencies in that district; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 55).

Wellbeing of Future Generations (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Simon Fell presented a Bill to make provision for a public consultation to inform a set of national wellbeing goals; to require public bodies to act in pursuit of the United Kingdom’s environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing by meeting wellbeing objectives, publishing future generations impact assessments and accounting for preventative spending; to establish a futures and forecasting report; to establish a Commission for Future Generations for the United Kingdom; to extend the duty of the Office of Budget Responsibility to consider wellbeing and the future generations principle   in their work; to add onto a Minister in each government department’s portfolio a duty to promote the future generations principle across government policy; to establish a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Future Generations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 56).

Conversion Therapy (Prohibition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Wera Hobhouse presented a Bill to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 57).

Pedicabs (London) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Nickie Aiken, supported by Felicity Buchan, Florence Eshalomi, David Simmonds and Ms Karen Buck, presented a Bill to provide for the regulation of the carrying of passengers in Greater London by pedal cycles and power-assisted pedal cycles for hire or reward; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 58).

Employment (Caring Leave) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Jack Brereton presented a Bill to give employees who are unpaid carers the right to one week’s unpaid leave for caring purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 59).

Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Layla Moran, supported by Ed Davey, Stephen Farry, Sarah Champion, Andy Slaughter, Alyn Smith, Caroline Lucas and Claire Hanna, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the recognition of the State of Palestine.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 60).

Climate and Ecology Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Caroline Lucas, supported by Barry Gardiner, Alan Brown, Ed Davey, Liz Saville Roberts, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry, Clive Lewis, Alex Sobel, Brendan O’Hara, Sarah Olney and Ben Lake, presented a Bill to require the United Kingdom to achieve climate and nature targets; to give the Secretary of State a duty to implement a strategy to achieve those targets; to establish a Climate and Nature Assembly to advise the Secretary of State in creating that strategy; to give duties to the Committee on Climate Change and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee regarding the strategy and targets; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 61).

Non-Disclosure Agreements Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Mrs Maria Miller presented a Bill to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 62).

Tips Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Dean Russell presented a Bill to prohibit employers retaining tips and gratuities intended for staff; to make provision about the division of tips and gratuities between staff; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 63).

Education (16 to 19 Academies)  (Religious Character)Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Scott Benton presented a Bill to permit 16 to 19 academies to have a designated religious character; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 64).

Kinship Care (Parental Leave) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Katherine Fletcher presented a Bill to make provision about parental leave for kinship carers who take on responsibility for children whose parents are unable to care for them; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 65).

Miscarriage Leave Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Angela Crawley presented a Bill to make provision for paid leave for people who have experienced miscarriage.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 66).

Crown Estate (Devolution to Wales) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Liz Saville Roberts, supported by Hywel Williams and Ben Lake, presented a Bill to devolve management of the Crown Estate and its assets in Wales to the Welsh Government; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 67).

Electric Vehicle Charging Points  (New Buildings) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Felicity Buchan presented a Bill to make provision about electric vehicle charging points in new buildings; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 68).

Electoral Commission (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to abolish the Electoral Commission; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 69).

Hospitals (Parking Charges and Business Rates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to prohibit charging for car parking at NHS Hospitals for patients and visitors; to make provision for NHS Hospitals to be exempt from business rates; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 70).

Human Trafficking (Child Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of secure safe houses for children that have been subject to human trafficking; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 71).

General Election (Leaders’ Debates) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to set up a commission to make arrangements for debates between leaders of political parties during a General Election; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 72).

Homeless People (Current Accounts) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to require banks to provide current accounts for homeless people seeking work; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 73).

Electoral Candidates (Age) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to allow a person who is age 18 or older on the day of a parliamentary or local election to stand as candidate; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 74).

Prime Minister (Accountability to  House of Commons) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to impose duties on the Prime Minister relating to accountability to the House of Commons; to require the Prime Minister to be available to answer questions in that House on at least two occasions during a sitting week except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 75).

Voter Registration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to prohibit persons from being registered to vote in Parliamentary elections at more than one address; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 76).

North Northamptonshire (Urgent Care Facilities) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision about the restructuring of urgent care facilities in North Northamptonshire; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 77).

Business of the House Commission Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to create a Business of the House Commission to regulate the timetabling of business in the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 78).

Asylum Seekers (Return to Safe Countries) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to require asylum seekers who have arrived in the United Kingdom from a safe country to be immediately returned to that country; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 79).

BBC Licence Fee (Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to abolish the BBC licence fee and make the BBC a subscription service; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 80).

Human Trafficking (Sentencing) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to make provision about penalties for human trafficking offences.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 81).

Leader of the House of Commons (Election) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to amend the House of Commons Administration Act 1978 to provide that the Prime Minister may only nominate as Leader of the House of Commons a Member of that House who is from the governing party and is elected by a system in which all Members of the House of Commons may participate; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 82).

Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Peter Bone presented a Bill to amend retained EU law relating to compulsory insurance for the use of motor vehicles; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 83).

Consumer Pricing Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to prohibit the practice of offering preferential pricing to new customers compared to existing customers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 84).

Broadcasting (Listed Sporting Events) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to expand the list of sporting events that must be made available for broadcast by free-to-air television channels; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 85).

Puppy Import (Prohibition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to prohibit the import of young puppies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 86).

Employment (Application Requirements) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to regulate the use of minimum qualification or experience requirements in job applications; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 87).

Public Sector Website Impersonation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to create an offence of impersonating a public sector website for the purpose of collecting payment or personal data; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 88).

Hunting Trophy Import (Prohibition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to prohibit the import of wild animal specimens derived from trophy hunting; and for connected purposes..
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 89).

Armenian Genocide (Recognition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to require Her Majesty’s Government to formally recognise the Armenian genocide of 1915-16.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 90).

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Spellar presented a Bill to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 so as to abolish the system of by-elections for hereditary peers.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 91).

Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make provision about Parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under that Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 92).

Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to exempt motor homes from caravan site licensing requirements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 93).

NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision about arranging alternative non-NHS England treatment for patients who have waited for more than one year for hospital treatment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 94).

Channel 4 (Privatisation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of Channel 4; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 95).

British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for the privatisation of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 96).

Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to extend the definition of children’s clothing for the purposes of exemption from VAT; to extend the VAT exemption to further categories of school uniform; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 97).

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to decriminalise the non-payment of the BBC licence fee by persons aged over seventy five; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 98).

Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require a Regulatory Impact Assessment to be published for all primary and secondary legislation introduced by the Government; to make provision for associated sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 99).

Barnett Formula (Replacement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to Parliament on proposals to replace the Barnett Formula used to calculate adjustments to public expenditure allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with a statutory scheme for the allocation of resources based on an assessment of relative needs; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 100).

NHS (Prohibition of Data Transfer) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to prohibit the transfer of personal data by the NHS without the authority of the data subject; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 101).

Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the Mobile Homes Act 1983; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 102).

Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to require public authorities to exercise their statutory powers to investigate and take enforcement action for breaches of the law; to make provision for sanctions for failing to take such action; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February 2022 , and to be printed (Bill 103).

Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)s
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 104).

National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to make provision for co-funding and for the extension of co-payment for NHS services in England; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February 2022, and to be printed (Bill 105).

Caravan Sites Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to amend the requirements for caravan site licence applications made under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 106).

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to limit exit payments made by some public sector organisations to employees; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 107).

Green Belt (Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Christopher Chope presented a Bill to establish a national register of Green Belt land in England; to restrict the ability of local authorities to de-designate Green Belt land; to make provision about future development of de-designated Green Belt land and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 October, and to be printed (Bill 108).

Workers (Employment Security and Definition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Martin Docherty-Hughes, supported by Chris Stephens, presented a Bill to make provision about employment security and the rights of workers; to amend the definition of worker; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 109).

Workers (Rights and Definition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; to amend the definition of worker; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 110).

Full Employment Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on  the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pursue a policy of full employment; to make associated provision for an   employment guarantee scheme for benefit claimants who have been unemployed and looking for work for longer than six months; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 111).

Health and Safety at Work Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to make provision about civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties, and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 112).

Asylum Seekers (Accommodation Eviction Procedures) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for asylum seekers to challenge the proportionality of a proposed eviction from accommodation before an independent court or tribunal; to establish asylum seeker accommodation eviction procedures for public authorities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 113).

Disability Benefit Assessments (Recording) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that applicants for Disability Benefit are given the option of their eligibility assessment being audio-recorded; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 114).

Benefit Sanctions (Warnings) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for warnings to be given to benefit claimants before they are given sanctions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 115).

Universal Credit Sanctions  (Zero Hours Contracts) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to amend the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to provide that a Universal Credit claimant may not be sanctioned for refusing work on a zero hours contract; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 December, and to be printed (Bill 116).

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Powers) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to grant powers to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to identify and investigate systemic problems in the benefits system and make associated recommendations to the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 117).

Under-Occupancy Penalty (Report) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of repealing those provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which provide for persons to be paid reduced rates of housing benefit or universal credit because their accommodation is deemed to be under-occupied.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 118).

Social Security Benefits (Healthy Eating) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish annual calculations of the benefit and tax credit rates that would be required for a representative household to afford to buy meals in accordance with the Eatwell Guide to eating healthily; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 119).

Housing Standards (Refugees and Asylum Seekers) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for national minimum standards in accommodation offered to refugees and asylum seekers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 120).

Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to make provision for granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have waited six months for a decision on their asylum application; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 121).

Evictions (Universal Credit) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Stephens presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent the evictions of Universal Credit claimants in rent arrears; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 122).

Immigration (Health and Social Care Staff) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine presented a Bill to grant indefinite leave to remain to health and social care staff; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 123).

Intimate Images (Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Maria Miller presented a Bill to create offences relating to the taking, making and sharing of intimate images without consent; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 124).

Pregnancy and Maternity (Redundancy Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mrs Maria Miller, supported by Sally-Ann Hart, Nickie Aiken, Mrs Flick Drummond, Virginia Crosbie, Caroline Nokes, Karen Bradley, Angela Crawley, Sarah Champion, Jeremy Hunt and Stephen Timms, presented a Bill to prohibit redundancy during pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months after the end of the pregnancy or leave, except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 125).

Workers (Rights) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Gavin Newlands, supported by Ian Blackford, Chris Stephens, Mhairi Black, Kirsten Oswald, Brendan O’Hara, David Linden, Drew Hendry, Alan Brown, Alison Thewliss, Amy Callaghan and Owen Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October, and to be printed (Bill 126).

Workers (Rights and Definition) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angela Crawley presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; to amend the definition of worker; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 127).

Workers (Rights) (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anum Qaisar-Javed, supported by Ian Blackford, Gavin Newlands, Chris Stephens, Kirsten Oswald, David Linden, Angela Crawley, Martin Docherty-Hughes, Martyn Day, Carol Monaghan, Angus Brendan MacNeil and Owen Thompson, presented a Bill to make provision about workers’ rights; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 128).

Automated External Defibrillators  (Public Access) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jim Shannon presented a Bill to require the installation of automated external defibrillators in public buildings, sporting facilities, schools, higher education and other education and skills facilities, and facilities that provide care to vulnerable people; and to make associated provision about training and signage.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 129).

Eleanor Laing: I will briefly suspend the House for two minutes in order to make preparations for the next item of business.
Sitting suspended.

Opposition Day - [3rd ALLOTTED DAY]Opposition Day

Planning Decisions: Local Involvement

Steve Reed: I beg to move,
That this House believes planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and therefore calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.
It was only last month in the Queen’s Speech debate that we warned the Government that they would reap a political whirlwind if they went ahead with their plans to silence communities and hand control over planning to developers. They felt the first blasts of that whirlwind in Chesham and Amersham, but it will not finish there because it is fair to say that the Conservatives’ planning reforms are not popular with voters. That is not because voters are nimbys, as Ministers rather offensively like to brand them, but because residents rightly want and deserve a say over how their own neighbourhoods are developed.
Under the Conservatives’ proposals, planning decisions will be taken away from democratically elected local councils and handed to development boards appointed by Ministers in Whitehall. These new quangos will help zone areas for development. Residents living in areas zoned for growth will find that they no longer have an automatic right to object to individual planning applications on their own doorsteps, no right to object to oversized blocks at the end of the street, no right to object to concreting over precious green space, and no right to object to new developments that overburden local infrastructure such as roads, doctors’ surgeries, schools or public transport.

Edward Leigh: I can quite understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to make a doomed bid for prosperous Tory voters in the south-east, but will he answer the question, on behalf of my children, young professional people working in London and the south-east: how on earth are they going to get on to the property market?

Steve Reed: The point the right hon. Gentleman makes is important. If he listens to my speech, he will hear me go on to talk about the 1 million consented homes that have not been built, which all those people could be living in if the Government would address that issue, rather than tackle the wrong issue, which they seem intent on doing, despite the backlash from their own political supporters against their proposals.
Under the Government’s proposals, residents will be gagged from speaking out, while developers will be set loose to bulldoze and concrete over local neighbourhoods pretty much at will. These proposals are nothing less than a developers’ charter that silences local communities, so developers can exploit local communities for profit.

Andrew Griffith: The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government’s proposals. I think that he should bring them here and table them in this House, because all that we on the Government Benches have seen is a White Paper. We have not seen the Government’s response to that. Perhaps he has.

Steve Reed: It is pretty fair to say that a White Paper is Government proposals.
Why would the Government do something so desperately unpopular with their own voters, let alone with all the rest of voters? Well, since the current Prime Minister took office, donations to the Conservative party from major developers have increased by nearly 400%, according to analysis by openDemocracy. That money was an investment in expectation of a return, and here it is. The Prime Minister is paying back developers by selling out communities.
The Government’s proposals have been criticised by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Local Government Association, the Countryside Alliance and even the National Trust, but they have also been criticised by Members on the Government’s own Benches. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), a distinguished former Prime Minister, says:
“We need to ensure that that planning system sees the right number of homes being built in the right places. But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1051.]
That was the former Conservative Prime Minister speaking about the Government’s proposals. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) says:
“Increasingly, it looks like the Government are not interested in what local people think at all. I urge the Minister to think about the impact of showing contempt for local democracy.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1063.]
That was a senior member of the Housing Minister’s own party accusing the Government of showing contempt for local democracy. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) puts it like this—
“instead of taking away local powers, the Government should be looking at the number of planning permissions given that do not result in houses being built.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1066.]
That is precisely the point I made in response to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). They are all right—they are all absolutely right.
I used to co-chair the biggest regeneration strategy board in the country—it delivered over 5,000 new homes—and that experience showed me that regeneration works best in everyone’s interests when it is a strong partnership between councils, communities and developers. That is how we get new homes built where people need them. The best developers know that, too. They do not want to build in the teeth of local opposition; they want to work with the local community and build something that enhances the local area for the existing community as well as for newcomers and those who need a home.
There are real problems with the current planning system that need to be addressed. We are not building the number of new homes the country needs. The last Labour Government increased home ownership by 1 million people. The current Conservative Government, sadly, have reduced it by 800,000 people, and they have cut the amount of social housing being built by 80%. However, the problem with getting homes built is not the planning process; it is developers who do not build the homes once they have consent. The Government are refusing to tackle the real problem. Nine in 10 planning applications  get approval, but according to the Conservative-led Local Government Association, over 1.1 million homes that received consent in the past decade have still not been built, which is over half of all homes approved by council planning departments.
One of the problems causing this situation is land banking. That is where a developer gets approval for an application to build new homes, but instead of building, waits for land values to rise so they can sell it on without having laid a single brick. Instead of a planning Bill that does nothing about this, we need new measures that incentivise developers to get these shovel-ready homes built more quickly, and since the Government have done nothing at all about this, we will bring forward legislation for the House to vote on.

Wera Hobhouse: Does the hon. Member agree that this is not about the number of houses, but about the whole infrastructure around housing applications —accessibility, connectivity, access to schools and green places? The planning system is not just about building the number of houses, but about building them in the right places with the right infrastructure around them.

Steve Reed: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and certainly new homes need appropriate infrastructure to allow communities to thrive. That is one of the important reasons why local communities need a say over planning and development—a say that the Government are intent, unfortunately, on taking away from them. Regeneration cannot be something that is done to communities; it must be done with them. The current planning system does not work well enough, that is for sure, but the answer cannot be to carve local communities out of a say over their own neighbourhoods. It should be to incentivise developers to build the homes they have approval for.
The motion before the House is a modest proposal that simply invites Members to vote for what many Government Members say they believe in. It simply asks the Government to guarantee that residents will retain the right to a hearing over individual developments on their own streets, in their own neighbourhood or on their own local green space. We are asking for nothing more than what Government Members have already said they want. Their own Front Benchers clearly are not listening to them, so here is the chance for them to make the point more clearly. Members’ constituents would be astonished if their MP failed to vote for something that they say they support, so I urge Members in all parts of the House to come together this afternoon. Let us work cross party, across the Chamber, and take a stand for the communities that we all represent.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak in this debate and the next debate this afternoon, so we will have to begin with a time limit of three minutes, which will be immediately imposed.

Christopher Pincher: I am sure that the entire House enjoyed the performance of the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), the shadow Housing Minister, although I have to say that  the closest he came to accuracy, Madam Deputy Speaker, was when he addressed you as Madam Deputy Speaker. However, at least he gives me the opportunity to put the case for a transparent, engaging and modern planning system that will help to deliver the homes that we need, to give everyone in our country the chance, if they want to, to get on to the housing ladder.
Our planning reforms are a sensible set of proposals to address the failures of the English planning system, which was conceived almost three quarters of a century ago and which many accept is now too slow, too difficult to navigate and too off-putting for the broad mass of communities. Right now, it can take up to seven years to adopt a local plan. Only 41% of local authorities have an up-to-date plan and some have no plan at all, all of which puts much of their communities at risk of speculative development.

Christian Wakeford: Talking about councils that have no plan, I refer the House to my Labour-led council in Bury. Does the Minister agree that while we want democratic engagement, the worst thing possible is to have that engagement and not listen to the people, as my council is doing to the over 10,000 people who want protection of the green belt, every single one of whom is being ignored?

Christopher Pincher: I hope that my hon. Friend’s council does listen, and I also hope, for that matter, that the Greater Manchester Mayor listens. We have given them £75 million of public funds to invest in brownfield remediation. Let him use it effectively for his constituents in Greater Manchester.
Individual planning applications can take up to five years to determine, in addition to plans potentially taking up to seven years. The system is not fast enough and it is not consistent, nor is it clear or engaging enough. We are committed to improving the system, because our reforms will protect our valuable and beautiful green spaces, with vital protections for the green belt.

Daniel Zeichner: The Government’s Environment Bill rightly protects environmental net gain. How can that possibly work within a zonal planning system?

Christopher Pincher: We are determined to bake in biodiversity net gain of 10%. We are determined to look at recovery networks and also to ensure that we introduce a future homes standard. We will make sure that, baked into these plans and beyond, the environment comes first and foremost. I shall say a few more words about that in a moment.

Steven Baker: Will the Minister allow me to intervene?

Christopher Pincher: I will allow my hon. Friend very briefly.

Steven Baker: In Wycombe, in the especially treasured area of Gomm Valley, there was public consent for a plan to put in some houses that actually increased environmental amenity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public need the opportunity to say no, but the incentives to say yes, because they can see the gains for their community? May I also invite him to look at plans that I put forward in 2014 that would do just that?

Christopher Pincher: We certainly want communities to have much greater involvement in planning, and I will certainly look at the proposals that my hon. Friend put forward.
Our proposals will deliver a simpler, faster, more transparent process, giving communities and builders, especially small builders, certainty over what development is permitted through clear land allocations in local plans. They will ensure that developers contribute a fair share to funding affordable housing and infrastructure through a new, more predictable, more transparent and faster infrastructure levy that will ensure that communities get the affordable homes—and the schools, clinics and roundabouts to support those homes—when they need them. And they will further empower local people to set standards for beauty and design through local design codes, putting beauty at the heart of the planning system for the first time. The proposals will bring a slow and cumbersome paper-based system into the digital age, with interactive maps at our fingertips and involving far more local people than at present.

Emma Hardy: One of the concerns in my constituency is flooding, and as the Minister knows, the Flood Re insurance programme is suitable only for homes that were built before 2009. Given that all these new homes are being proposed, what reassurance can he give people that they will still be able to have affordable flood insurance to go with them?

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Lady is quite right, and we will look at the flooding issue as we further develop our proposals and bring them to Parliament. I recognise that this is a challenge; it is a challenge in my own constituency too.
One poll showed that 69% of people had no knowledge of or connection with local plan making. That is simply not good enough, and we believe that there is an appetite for change. Let me briefly come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Croydon North. We all know that he is trying to make a name for himself—quite some name—and we also know that he has one or two little hobby-horses. But like so many hobby-horses, they can turn into an obsession. He started out quite normally with an interest in planning and its rules, but quickly—all too quickly—it went downhill. He conceives himself as some sort of latter-day witchfinder general, a chief of the inquisition constantly in search of some heresy under every stone, and finding plots and conspiracy under every brick. I fear that his latest, albeit short, outpouring shows that the fantasy has gone a little too far. In just a few minutes, he has gone from acting like Tomás de Torquemada to being like David Icke. How long will it be before he runs off and jumps into his turquoise tracksuit and starts telling everybody that the world is run by lizards and that he is the godhead?
In the wording of the Opposition’s proposals, are they now saying that they oppose local development orders, which allow certain types of development to go ahead without a specific planning application, even though they introduced that legislation themselves in 2004? Are they also opposed to neighbourhood development orders, which also allow certain developments without specific planning applications? It sounds as if they are. In fact, it sounds as if they do not really know what they are talking about and that they do not have any firm, sound  policies at all, which his predecessor, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), admitted in a private briefing.
I make this offer to the hon. Gentleman: come in to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, talk to our officials and let them explain how the current planning system rules for Ministers work. In that way, he can see for himself how carefully it is controlled. He may not take any notice—in fact, I suspect he probably will not—but at least he will have had the chance to listen, to ask some questions and possibly to learn.
There has been a good deal of discussion, in the House and beyond, about community engagement. I reassure the House that our proposals will not diminish the ability of local communities to take part in the planning process. On the contrary, they are designed to give communities more of a say, not less, with better information, easier means of taking part and, crucially, a clearer voice when it can make a real difference in the planning process.
Under our present planning system, when asked what they think of their local area, there are twice as many people who say that it has got worse as those who say it has got better. Under our present planning system, just 1% of the local population get involved in local plan making, and just 2% or 3% of local people get involved in discussions about local developments. That is very few—too few—yet with so little engagement, and often after months or years of tortuous wrangling, nine in every 10 planning applications end up being approved anyway. I do not think that those facts suggest a system that is really very engaging, still less one that is truly empowering. We can do better, and we will.

Rachael Maskell: Will the Minister therefore listen to local communities who want local occupancy restrictions so that they can live in local homes, as opposed to those homes becoming holiday lets and Airbnbs?

Christopher Pincher: We are certainly open to the proposition; we are taking it forward anyway with our proposition for first homes. However, I suggest to the hon. Lady that it would be very helpful if, as I know she believes should happen, her own local authority got a plan in place to protect its community—her community—from speculative developments.
Our proposals will increase opportunities for local people to be involved in local plans, using a map-based system that will show clearly what building is proposed and where, what it will be, what it will look like and what kind of infrastructure will support it—real involvement, including in the development of local design codes. Through our new office for place, drawing on Britain’s world-class design expertise, communities and their local councils will be empowered to set local design standards, putting design and beauty at the heart of our planning system.

Dean Russell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the consultation people should have a say on the height of buildings in their local community, so that they do not live under the shadow of tall buildings when they do not wish to?

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. As he will know, we introduced a tall buildings policy in London in the teeth of opposition from the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. We are certainly open to the prospect of such policies more broadly, beyond London; I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that policy opportunity.
Our plans will make it easier for local people to really influence the plan in their community and have their say on the future development of their local area, including the standards of design that builders must adhere to.

Christian Wakeford: The Minister is being generous in giving way. We have talked about the huge importance of communities engaging in the planning process and of having a local plan, but does he agree that the most engaging way to get residents involved in the planning process is by rolling out more neighbourhood plans, so that the process can be devolved to the most local areas possible, whether they are areas of towns or villages?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising neighbourhood plans. We are keen to advance the opportunities that they afford to their communities. We are very conscious that they tend to occur in the south of our country or in the more rural parts; we are determined to roll them out into places further north and places that are much more urban, so that those communities too can benefit from the opportunity.
Our proposals will transform how planning and plan-making is done, taking us from an era of planning notifications on lamp posts to digital, interactive services enabling prop-tech companies to develop more engaging ways to visualise and communicate planning information, in turn improving everyone’s overall understanding of what is happening and where. Plans will be more accessible, presented in new, visual map-based formats based on machine-readable data accompanied by clear site-specific requirements. As I say, communities will be engaged at the earliest stages of the plan-making process to ensure that their views are fully reflected. To make sure that local authorities have the tools that they need, we promise a holistic review of council planning resources, because we want councils and their officers to have the scope and the skills to plan strategically for their communities, involving communities much more closely in their plan-making, the design of their communities, and the infrastructure to support them.

Andrew Griffith: Fundamental to building a consensus around the new planning structure will be making better use of brownfield land and, in particular, investing in brownfield land registers. Land is our most precious commodity. We are all into recycling. Recycling our land must be the way to go. Does the Minister agree?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That policy point is enshrined in the national planning policy framework and we will take it further in our proposals. The £400 million of brownfield regeneration funding that has been made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, added to by a further £100 million, is all designed to add teeth to our determination to develop on brownfield first.
There will be a continuing role for the existing planning application process. As I have said before in this House, that system does not go away. Where applicants wish to  vary from the local plan, they will need to make a full planning application in the usual way. Even where the broad principle of development is agreed through the plan, all the details will still need to be consulted on with communities and statutory consultees, and approved by officers or committees where appropriate. We are also looking closely at enforcement rules to ensure that where, such as in growth sites, the local authority has set up clear rules about development—which, by the way, will have had community consultation and agreement in the local plan—the authority has the tools and the ability to monitor and enforce those rules as development is built out.
The hon. Member for Croydon North mentioned build-out. We are very conscious that Oliver Letwin and, before him, Kate Barker produced a series of reports about build-out. We reckon that introducing this new, speedier process, which will aid small and medium-sized enterprises, will make it easier to bring forward plots of land with planning application for development much more quickly, and there will be more competition among developers. If people know that there are some up-front rules that they have to adhere to in order to build, there will be no necessity to land-bank. We are also very conscious of the points that have been made by many Members across the House, and those beyond it, about the importance of getting permissions built out, so we are looking closely at ways in which we can incentivise developers to continue to work closely with local authorities and with landowners to make sure that permissions are built out as rapidly as possible.

James Cartlidge: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend recognises the issue of build-out rate, but he has also referred several times to the risks of speculative development. The risk is that if you do not deliver, you lose control of your plan and are therefore subject to speculative development, which no one wants because such developments are sited in places that have not been supported at all. Does he agree that one of the upsides of the planning system must be to give communities certainty about the number of homes going forward, lessening the risk of losing the five-year land supply by having speculative development?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend, who is an expert in this field, is absolutely right. As I said in my earlier remarks, too few councils have up-to-date local plans. That leaves their communities at risk of speculative development. By implementing our proposals, which will ensure that local authorities must have local plans in place within 30 months, we will help protect communities such as his and such as all of ours against speculative development.
Our reforms will also leave an inheritance of strengthening and enhancing our environment. They will mean that environmental assets are better protected, more green spaces are provided, more sustainable development is supported, and new homes will be, as I said earlier, much more energy-efficient. Our planning reforms will support the implementation of the 10% biodiversity net gain enshrined in the Environment Bill and capitalise on the potential of local nature recovery networks. We will also make the system clearer and more accountable.
Our reforms also include measures to protect and enhance the green belt, taking into account its fundamental importance when considering the constraints that areas face.  We have made it clear in the NPPF, through Government investment and through our permitted development rights reforms, and we make it clear once again in our wider planning reforms: brownfield development must come first.

Mike Wood: Under the current system, too often local planning officers advise that unless green belt is released, local plans will be subject to challenge and will lose once they are referred to the inspector. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that where local authorities can demonstrate that they have enough brownfield sites available for development for their own assessed housing need, the green belt in areas such as Dudley South will be protected?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend must have seen my speech, because I am about to move on to the matter of the green belt, which we will continue to protect, because our policy has not changed. We made a manifesto commitment to the green belt as a means of protecting against urban sprawl, and we mean to keep it. Local authorities should not develop on the green belt, save in exceptional circumstances, and local plan making should recognise the green belt as a constraint on numbers, as my letter to Members of Parliament in December last year made clear. For the record, we will not be accepting the recommendation in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report for a wholesale review of the green belt.
These measures and these commitments are important. They are a very important part of delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to create the most ambitious environmental programme of any country in the world. We are clear that to help make home ownership affordable for more people, we need to deliver more homes, because by the age of 30, those born between 1981 and 2000 are half as likely to be homeowners as those born between 1946 and 1965. We need to take bold steps to provide enough homes in the places where people and communities need them.
At the last general election, we made a commitment to deliver the homes that the country needs—better-quality homes, of different designs and different tenures in the right places all around the country where they are needed. We have promised to extend the chance of home ownership to all who want it, and in any poll one cares to conduct, more than 80% of people—young people, less affluent people—will say that they want the opportunity to own their own home. They aspire to a stake in their community and their country, yet for far too many people that aspiration—

Ruth Cadbury: Painful.

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Lady says it is painful. Yes, it is very painful for those people who cannot get on the property ladder. It seems an impossible dream, because in places around our country, the average price of a home is many multiples of average earnings—in some places, it is 12 times the average wage. In other places there are just not enough appropriate homes for older people who want to step down the property ladder into more suitable individual accommodation.
If we are to keep our promise to those who aspire to own their own home or move into the right home, we must not only provide the right economic framework in  which skills and jobs can thrive, and continue to deliver initiatives such as Help to Buy, right to buy and First Homes, which give people a leg up on the ladder, but we must deliver the homes people need. That is what we are doing.
We have delivered 1.8 million new homes since 2010. In 2020 we delivered 244,000 new homes across our country. We have an ambition to build—as do the Liberal Democrats, apparently—300,000 homes each year by the middle of this decade. That is in stark contrast to Labour’s lamentable failure to provide the homes this country needs. Under Labour, housebuilding fell to its lowest rate since the 1920s and the days when Ramsay MacDonald was the party leader—by modern standards he was quite popular. In London, Labour’s Sadiq Khan has built fewer than half the homes he promised, despite having an extra year in which to do it. In Labour-run Wales, so few council homes are being built that they could barely accommodate a Welsh rugby team.
We now have a new shadow Housing Secretary, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who opposes the delivery of almost any building proposed in her constituency—something of a niche approach to home making. In truth—Labour Members do not like this truth; they cannot handle it—Labour does not like people to own their own homes. Labour Members do not want people, especially young people, to get on the property ladder. They do not like aspiration, they do not like capitalism, and they do not want our people to aspire to or to be capitalists. Well, we have something to say to that and it begins with a B. We say “Bolshevism” to that. Indeed, Lord Mandelson, one of Labour’s more successful and less bolshy people, says the same. When he returned from Hartlepool a few weeks ago, he said:
“I can see that people are proud of what they have achieved,”
He said that people are aspirational, and that they are not sure they have achieved that with Labour—a damning indictment of that party.
By contrast, Conservative Members are proud of those people, and we will ensure that people like them across the country achieve their aspirations under this Government. This Government are determined to level up opportunity the length and breadth of this country. From Redruth to Redcar we are determined to ensure that people are not priced out of their local communities. We are determined to get them on the ladder, because that is what they want. Just a week or two ago Sam Legg, just 19 years of age from Asfordby in Leicestershire, became the 300,000th Help to Buyer. He said that he could not have got on the ladder without Help to Buy and the support of this Government. If people like Sam and Megan, and millions like them all around the country, want to get on the property ladder, we must address the housing challenge head-on.
We know that introducing wide-ranging reforms excites real passion. It is right that those reforms are properly scrutinised by the House, and they will be; we are keen to ensure that our proposals are well considered and reflect the interests of every community across the country. We strongly believe that a modernised, transparent, engaging planning system that delivers better outcomes for local democracy, the economy, the environment and housing in a better and faster way is a long overdue  reform. As we emerge from the pandemic, now is the time to drive those reforms forward: giving communities a real say in development; creating more beautiful places; making the very best use of brownfield sites to regenerate our cities and town centres; extending opportunity and security for millions; and delivering the homes our country wants and needs.
While the Opposition sink back into their comfort zone, extolling sectional interest and chained to Corbynite dogma, we will build the homes the country needs. We will build them back better and stronger. We will make sure that the banner of aspiration flies here.

Valerie Vaz: I have had to cut my speech down.
I welcome this motion, following the publication of the report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. The Minister will know that my Adjournment debate was a foretaste of what my constituents have had to put up with and what the future holds if the Government proceed with the as yet unpublished White Paper.
The Government’s hopeless response is to exclude the public even more from the process, instead of improving processes now. It is a developers’ charter that is becoming the people’s nightmare. The Select Committee’s report included an interesting statistic on the planning process, stating on page 112:
“63% said they were not satisfied with their experience. 61% said they did not think that the planning process was fair.”
The Minister will know the story of Narrow Lane, but I have to repeat it. In Walsall, we had a plan. We had the site allocation document—a document on how the land will be used. There was extensive consultation and it was approved by the planning inspector in 2019. Without any notice or consultation, Walsall Council’s cabinet decided that Narrow Lane was to be the location for a Traveller transit site. The site is on a junction, so there is poor air quality and there have been a number of accidents, including one two weeks ago, when an elderly person was knocked over.
The council’s cabinet agreed on the location without even looking at the site allocation document or referring to it in the background papers, and that is what is going to happen under the Government’s proposals: they will say that they have had the consultation with the local plan, but there will be no further involvement with our constituents and councillors, and the Secretary of State will be free to decide what they want, without local involvement. Here is the warning: the decision maker can depart from the local plan. Our constituents will remain helpless under these hopeless proposals.
The Government say that this is about housing, but 1 million homes have been approved but not built. Some are built on floodplains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) mentioned, and there is no mention of climate change. Why does the Minister not mandate that every new build should have solar panels on the roof? There are serious concerns about making planning changes.
My next point is about transparency and conflicts of interest.

Emma Hardy: I am sorry to intervene so early and thank my right hon. Friend for taking my intervention. My point was about not just building on floodplains, but the importance of having flood insurance for all the new homes that are not currently eligible for the Flood Re insurance scheme.

Valerie Vaz: I absolutely agree.
In our case, it was agreed in the SAD that the transit site would be placed on a site that was environmentally suitable, near to a settled community—everything to integrate that community—but it happened to be in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), who used to be a councillor on Walsall Council. The portfolio holder used to work for him, but he now works for the Conservative party, registering his interest only days after the scrutiny committee meeting. Our legal advice said that there was bias, just as there was with the approval of the £1 billion Westferry Printworks in Tower Hamlets. The Secretary of State has already admitted that that was
“unlawful by reason of apparent bias.”
I have asked the Minister to investigate the earlier decision of Walsall Council’s cabinet. I ask him again: could he please do so? If he is serious about making changes, could he also mandate that every planning committee has a compulsory recorded vote for every decision that they make, as that would increase transparency and accountability?
In conclusion, we need more consultation, not less, including with all civic society and historical associations. The Town and Country Planning Association said:
“All of these reforms have a common theme of removing local voices from the process.”
Buildings and places do not exist without the people who breathe life into them, just as we have seen during the pandemic. I urge the Minister to listen to local people, give them back control and end the people’s nightmare.

William Wragg: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). I have to say that I thought what happened to her in her party’s reshuffle was deeply unfair, because—and I say this gently—I do not think she was the problem at all.
There is a sense of déjà vu pervading our proceedings today. As repetition is not a cardinal sin in this House, I shall again make the points that I have made on umpteen occasions, whether in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall. Unusually, I will look at the wording of the motion as the basis of my speech, because who could possibly disagree with the sentiments expressed in it? The problem is that we agree with the principle, but politics gets in the way. I suppose it is an occupational hazard of being here, as, indeed, it is a hazard in the adversarial nature of the planning system.
If I may borrow the phrase “work together” from the motion, I see that very much epitomised by the concept of neighbourhood planning, which I want to see strengthened still further and support entirely. For those in High Lane, Marple, Marple Bridge, Mellor, Mill Brow and Compstall in my constituency, those processes  are not happening quickly enough and are not strongly protected enough in law. It is a straightforward way to involve people in the system and to make them buy into it, as it were, so that they can accept the new homes that it is necessary to build.
I also borrow from the motion the phrase “necessary new homes”. Yes, but is the 300,000 target the issue? After all, parties seemed to agree with that in their manifestos. It is necessary, I venture to say, to end land banking, as a number of Members have touched on. Having a million or so units with permissions but that are not being built seems to be at the heart of the problem that we face. I look forward to the Minister bringing forward concrete proposals to, as he said, “incentivise” them, but if incentives do not work, we should, quite frankly, use the stick as well.
It is also necessary to continue to promote brownfield developments. This is a success story for the Government. In Stockport, for example, they told us that there was room for only 7,000 units on such sites, but the Government then mandated the council to provide that register and, lo and behold, that increased to 12,000, so that shows that progress is being made in that area.
We are not nimbys—that is not an accusation that should be thrown at those of us who might have some scepticism about some of the ideas that have ventured forth. Nor, indeed, are we bananas—that is, “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody”. What we want to see is a planning process—although some people might disagree—that involves and engages people and delivers the housing that we most certainly need.

Stephanie Peacock: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg).
The planning system is already well rigged in developers’ favour. We put trust and faith in a democratic process that has been eroded in much of the country. In my constituency, there has been a significant amount of anger, upset and deep concern caused by the planning system, particularly with regard to a site that is being developed for myHermes. Although there were a number of consultations before land allocation, understandably the vast majority of people were not even aware that a potential allocation was taking place.
The Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), said in response to my written question on this issue that
“previous studies suggest that only a small proportion of the public tend to engage in local plan consultations.”
We all know that people tend only to become aware and engage when an application is made and when a site notice appears, but this causes real upset when people do then engage and seek to share their views at the application stage, only to be told that the decision about the site has already been made. At best, it leaves people feeling ignored. At worst, it leads to a feeling of total disenfranchisement from local democracy. This is not the fault of our local councils; it is the process.

Christopher Pincher: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Stephanie Peacock: No, I am going to make some progress. However, the councils and the planning committees take the blame. Planning works best when it is a partnership. We need the right types of homes in the  right places. Of course we need investment and new jobs, but just leaving delivery to the market will not deliver partnership and will fundamentally fail to meet people’s needs. With the brownfield remediation fund devastated by the Tories and a soft-touch approach to land banking and speculation, the inevitable consequences of this policy will be a further loss of valued green spaces without local voices being heard.
The reality is that the planning process is not a democratic one; it is a legal one. However, this situation is due to become far, far worse. With these changes, the Government will be ripping out the only democratic element of the planning process. The proposals are nothing short of a developers’ charter. As has been stated, since the Prime Minister became leader of the Conservative party, donations to the Tories from developers have increased by 400%. With these proposals, the Prime Minister is paying them back by selling out our communities. Some of those developers have even seen their individual planning applications personally approved by the Secretary of State against his own Department’s advice.
There is a reason why there is so much opposition to the proposals. Their introduction would be the greatest shift in power to big developers in the history of this country. We need a fundamentally new approach, not more market control. We need democratic control. The Government’s proposals will not deliver that. The developers and donors will be delighted, but it is our communities who will pay the price.

John Hayes: These were the words of Dickens:
“Home is a name, a word, it is a strong one; stronger than magician ever spoke, or spirit ever answered to, in the strongest conjuration.”
I want to speak briefly about demand, supply and ownership.
Homes form the heart of a property-owning democracy, one that Britons want and deserve. Ownership kindles individual fulfilment and communal wellbeing, as it fosters feelings of responsible pride. Through beautiful building, desired homes can allow people’s dreams to come true. Yet fewer people own homes now as a proportion of the total than did 20 years ago. That is not acceptable, because we know that most people do not want it that way. Every poll taken, as the Minister said, suggests that people want to become homeowners. Our job is to help to make that dream come true. Owning capital is the heart of capitalism and homeownership is a vital milestone to communal enfranchisement, but they must be beautiful homes.
I want to talk about supply, because the supply of housing is not the same as building homes in which people want to live. It is right and proper that we should be inspired by the best of what has been. We should be no less ambitious for the next generation than Wren was when London was rebuilt after the great fire, or Pugin was when he designed the very place in which we sit. Let us be imaginative. Let us accept that all we build should inspire, should enthral. That is what the planning system needs to deliver: no more identikit soulless housing estates bolted on to the edge of settlements, but better, beautiful homes—homes of which we can be proud.
Let me say a word about demand. The problem is that we simply do not have enough houses to meet demand. That demand grows largely because of population change. The population is growing at an astonishing pace: it has increased by 6.6 million since 2001 and is expected to grow by a further 5.6 million by 2041. The problem of population growth is at the heart of this debate. Concerns about density, housing numbers and ecology can all be traced back to the fact that to house the expected 2041 increase in population, we will probably have to build a settlement greater than the size of Bedfordshire. That really cannot be reconciled with the current planning system. We need to control population by looking at the biggest single driver, which is net migration—it is not the time or place to discuss that here, because I have only 11 seconds left—so let me end by saying this. This planning reform can be regenerative and groundbreaking, but it will only be so if it has communities at its heart and beauty as its ambition.

Helen Hayes: Planning has a vital role to play in our response to the climate emergency, both in achieving net zero and in adapting to climate change which is already happening. It is critical in delivering the homes we need to end the housing crisis, and in delivering the infrastructure and services to support new residents. It is vital for economic development and the delivery of green jobs. At its most basic level, planning should be a framework for fairness. It should ensure that new development delivers what communities need, not what makes the most profit, and it should safeguard the things that they hold most dear. There is no doubt that our planning system is in need of reform, but this White Paper takes entirely the wrong approach. Locking communities and local councillors out of planning decisions on individual applications will not deliver more homes, better design, or zero-carbon development. It will create a developers’ charter for identikit places. Deregulating the planning system by expanding permitted development rights will mean that instead of protecting character and quality in our town and city centres they will be eroded, as shopping streets are pepper-potted with homes, and roofscapes become a mess of ad hoc two-storey extensions.
Instead of treating the planning system as inconvenient red tape to be swept away as much as possible, the Government should be seeking to make it fit for purpose for the challenges of the 21st century. From 2010, the Tory-Lib Dem coalition Government embarked on a bonfire of planning regulations, which removed many of the design standards intended to ensure low-carbon development, including the zero-carbon homes programme. That has resulted in more than a decade of lost time to deliver net zero, a decade in which new homes have continued to be built, which will now need to be retrofitted in the future when they could have been built to zero-carbon standards in the first place. The Government have been utterly negligent on low-carbon building, and making the superficial and subjective concept of beauty the core principle of their planning policy will do little to address that.
Our planning system cannot deliver the genuinely affordable social housing that we need without land reform. In the last Parliament, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to reform the Land Compensation Act 1961 to  enable local authorities to purchase land for housing at an affordable price without having to pay enormous windfall profits to landowners. Such reforms would enable councils and housing associations to build the homes that our communities need without having to cross-subsidise them with private development.
In the short time that is left available to me, I urge the Government to think again and place climate change at the heart of the system, people at the heart of the process, zero carbon and genuinely affordable homes as the key priority for delivery, and land reform to stop windfall profits as a core concern.

Charlotte Nichols: I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate today, not just because there are local issues that I wish to raise, but because planning policy reveals so much about who really has a say in deciding the face and quality of our towns and country in the years and decades to come.
There are natural tensions between residents, conservationists, people seeking new homes and the developers who stand to benefit. A fair planning system gives them all an opportunity to present their cases and to be heard equally so that provision can be made without exploiting or spoiling our landscape and heritage. If this developer’s charter becomes law, there would be no way for local people to object to bad or inappropriate proposals, such as those to build over Peel Hall in Warrington despite the valiant campaigning efforts over the past three decades by residents against proposals from Satnam. This vital green lung in our communities is beloved by residents and is a vital part of our area’s biodiversity.
Working with Warrington’s Labour council, I am looking at ways to make nature more accessible to residents, including bringing together the green spaces and nature reserves that ring the town through connecting cycleways and pathways to create a Warrington orbital park, and working with volunteers to clean up these spaces. I am also working with our vibrant creative sector to bring sculptures and other artworks to the parks to celebrate our local culture and heritage. All of this is now under threat.
The Government’s White Paper has not only nothing on the natural environment, but almost nothing on affordable rent or on net zero. It does not address wider infrastructure such as transport, retail or leisure, and simply puts developers in the driving seat of their cranes and diggers and gives them a green light to do what they like. I am not opposed to house building. Indeed, probably the largest volume of casework that I deal with relates to the lack of appropriate housing, especially affordable housing for large families and for constituents of my age looking to get on to the housing ladder.

Valerie Vaz: It is not just about houses, though, is it? It is about decent quality houses and homes.

Charlotte Nichols: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We need more three and four-bedroom family properties in Warrington where people can have a good standard of living, but what developers want is to convert or build endless one-bedroom flats where they benefit from their highest profit margins while delivering the least for families and our community.
Communities should have more say on planning and development. They know what is needed locally, and systems work better where people are working together rather than being shut out. So why have the Government put forward such obviously terrible proposals, angering their Back Benchers and even their own voters, as we saw in the by-election last week? Could it be connected to the fact that developer donations to the Tory party have risen 400% since the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) became leader of his party? Scarcely a week goes by without stories emerging of the Communities Secretary weighing in on behalf of developers who have made big donations to him or the Conservatives.
We can see the threat to our green and pleasant land from these greedy, present plans. I suspect that the Government would like to drop these proposals, but that is difficult when they have been bought. If Ministers press ahead with this developers’ charter, they must know that it will be resisted in the country, even in areas they have taken for granted. I call on them to listen to their constituents, not their paymasters, and to drop the proposals.

Rachael Maskell: The architecture of York is stunning. It is why 8 million people from across the world come to wind their way through medieval streets and snickets to stand before the towering Gothic architecture of York Minster in awe. The archaeology is rich and sensitive, and must be respected. It is the pride of our city that, beyond the walls, York’s housing, inspired by the Rowntree family to address poverty and inequality, set the blueprint for social housing, paving the way for the 1919 housing Act, with well proportioned family homes with gardens, first in New Earswick and then in Tang Hall.
Today, a city of inequality, where poverty once again suppresses the dreams of my constituents, is faced with a housing crisis. The low-waged economy means extortionate house prices, which are about to take a far more damaging turn through the alien York Central development plans. The developers’ charter that we are debating today is a fast track to procuring a city of luxury apartments that no one from York can afford. It will simply drive local house prices up, skewing the local economy and pushing local people further from their roots.
Those investors, who will spend over £500,000 a unit, will be the new commuters or, as we are seeing in other new developments, will turn their homes into holiday lets, Airbnbs and second homes. Homes England recognises that this development could turn York into a hen and stag party city, where local people fear to go. There is nothing beautiful about that—or about local families living in damp, overcrowded homes, where private landlords are fleecing them for every penny they have, or about the council failing to house people adequately. The plans also lack local consultation and scrutiny.
Let us contrast that with Labour’s vision of wanting to meet housing need with good-quality, sustainable homes, with gardens for families to enjoy, to meet local need and to rekindle the investment that the Rowntree family made. We want a family-friendly city, with facilities for children to play and for local people to enjoy. We want York Central to focus on jobs, to lift the low wages  of York and give everyone a hope of a better, fairer future. Instead of more cars congesting our streets, we want cleaner air and better transport, cycling and walking.
This site will be the ruining of York unless it is forced to change direction, empowering local people and putting the economic opportunity and housing needs of York first. The power of the site is its rail connectivity. It could be the economic driver of the north. Instead, opportunities for jobs will be choked off by housing that fails local people. The Minister’s development charter will simply accelerate the plans of the greedy at the cost of the needy. It must be rejected today.

Chris Clarkson: Like I think most Members, a substantial portion of my casework is on either planning or housing, so I am glad to participate in today’s debate. I would even say that I do not necessarily disagree with the thrust of it, although I ask Opposition Members whether they have actually spoken to any of their colleagues in local government.

Christian Wakeford: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way on this point. Does he agree that while Labour Members are expressing their faux outrage and are already attacking their inadvertently misleading attack ads, what they really need to do is turn lecture mode off and listening mode on?

Chris Clarkson: I thank my hon. Friend for his clairvoyance, because I was about to say that the lived experience does not necessarily match the rhetoric, and nowhere is that clearer than in Andy Burnham’s love letter to developers, the Greater Manchester spatial framework. As Labour authorities were scrambling over one another to designate as much green belt as possible for development, one in particular stood out: Rochdale Borough Council, which volunteered to build more homes than were allocated. In fact, in the first conversation that I ever had with the council leader, he told me that he wanted to build as many unaffordable homes as possible. We thought that we had killed off the plan when the Conservative group on Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council voted it down, but now Andy has simply repackaged it and is trying to force it through again. Apparently, that constitutes listening to people.
We know that planning is a hot-button issue. Several hon. Members have mentioned the by-election result. I honestly congratulate the new hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green): it is a privilege and an achievement to get here. I take some issue with the way she arrived here, though. On Thursday evening, when I was trudging the streets of Chesham, I had the following conversations at door after door: “Oh, yes, I am a Conservative—I always vote Conservative—but I voted for the Liberal Democrats this time because they’ve promised to stop all the house building,” and “I voted for the Liberal Democrats this time because they’re going to stop HS2.” This is a party that talks about social aspiration, but they are the sort of people who make sure that they are not in the house when the cleaner is coming; a party that talks about the environment, but with a Range Rover in the drive that only ever does the school run; a party led by a man who criticised   former politicians for becoming lobbyists, but who was a highly paid lobbyist when he was a former politician; a party that describes itself as democratic while trying to overturn the single largest democratic exercise in British history.
The simple fact of the matter is that simply telling people what they want to hear will never get the job done. We cannot just talk the talk; we have to walk the walk. I am cautiously optimistic about the planning Bill. In particular, I want to make it easier to build on brownfield, because we have an abundance of it in my constituency and a severe shortage of good-quality, affordable homes. In closing, I lay down a challenge to my council, because it is very keen on building. Instead of carving up our green belt, will it listen to what people are saying locally, as colleagues in Westminster have asked, and start developing the brownfield now?

Emma Hardy: It has been a pleasure to be part of this lively and informed debate, but I want to take a slightly different tack and focus on something very specific. The motion refers to delivering “necessary new homes”; I want to focus on the word “necessary”.
There is a section of our society who are always forgotten—in education, in adult social services and certainly in planning and home building—but whose numbers are growing: adults with learning disabilities and general disabilities. Where is the thought for them? Where is the thought for the number of homes and the housing needed for supported independent living? There is a huge shortage throughout the country, and people are getting desperate.
I refer particularly to constituents I have spoken to, a couple now in their 60s who have taken early retirement to care for their son, who is in his 30s. Their son has been known to social services and to the local authority since 1994, so it should not have come as a surprise to the local authority that he will need some form of accommodation as he gets older. His parents have done everything possible for him, but they are worried that as they start to age, they can no longer continuously care for him as they have done before. They have been trying since 2016 to find him some form of supported independent living, and none can be found. When I have liaised with the family to try to find them suitable accommodation, the stories they have told me of the difficulties they face are truly shocking. I will read just a little from an email that the mother sent me:
“This in itself is further evidence that housing for people like my son should not be subject to these vagaries and upheavals. I can only reiterate the need for a clear pathway for families so that these situations at the whim of the marketplace are avoided. Appropriate housing stock should be provided for vulnerable adults. For example a plot should be allocated on each of the new housing developments. Not just a care home for the elderly or a couple of flats bought up as social housing by housing associations, but properly designed units. Yes there would be a tiny reduction in the property of the big developers as the footprint of, for example, a 2 storey unit with 4 flats and a staff office would probably take up that of 1 large detached home. But I’m sure the good PR as a result would more than make up for that. Far preferable to being moved to out of county specialist provisions which can cost more than double that of an appropriate and more suitable ISL.”
I hope that as the White Paper goes forward, the needs of that section of society are at the forefront of the minds of the Minister and the Secretary of the State.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and to speak in this important debate.
Planning is about reconciling conflicts, such as conflicts in demand and conflicts in pressures both for homes, which are critical, and for building for protection of the environment. It is about reconciling potential conflicts between individuals—between those who wish to develop and their neighbours—and it is also about shaping places and communities. I have a lot of sympathy for many of the Government’s proposed reforms. There is no reason why we should not use modern technology to make planning much quicker and much more interactive, and those things I welcome.
I think that we could also look to legitimately speed up the process in a number of particulars. First, I have long been frustrated—going back to the time when I was a planning Minister in the Department—by the slow way in which statutory consultees often respond. Frequently, they delay applications for months on end. That ought to be very much in the Government’s gift, since most of them are Government agencies. We really ought to be holding their feet to the fire to respond in a timeous fashion when they are required to do so. Secondly, if we can simplify the plan creation process, that too will be sensible. Thirdly, many builders that I know in my constituency—medium-sized builders in particular—are frustrated by the length of time it takes to negotiate pre-commencement conditions. Those really ought to be kept to the minimum so that we can get moving on site.
The other matter we ought to look at in this regard, and I welcome the Government’s proposals for larger-scale development, is a greater simplification of the community infrastructure levy and the way in which we capture planning gain. That is important, and, as yet, we have not quite got that right. Those, too, are things I welcome.
However, I do think that when we make those improvements and modernisations—nothing ever stands still and we can always learn, particularly in technological matters—we also need to recognise that that cannot come at the expense of the right of communities to have a say in how those very communities in which people live, have put down their roots and have a stake, are developed. I have a word of caution for the Minister about how we approach the role of the individual objector and the role of the local authority in the planning process. It is a democratic issue. We have to make sure that we are efficient, but not at the expense of local democracy.
This must mean that a lot of key matters are taken at local level. For example, in Bromley in my constituency, we have a significant town centre, and there is considerable pressure for more tall building in Bromley. In the right place, that can be done, and Bromley Council has shown itself willing to do so, but within certain constraints.   We do not want to have a tall buildings policy dictated by the Mayor of London as part of a one-size-fits-all approach. We want to be able to decide for Bromley what the density levels and height levels should be in those areas. I have nothing against the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), but we do not want the same height levels as our neighbours in Croydon, which we can often see from Bromley. That ought to be a matter of our democratic choice. I think that is an important matter, and provided we can get the balance right, I think we can find a sensible way forward.
The final thing I want to say—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—is that we also need to have more planners. Good plan making requires dedicated professionals, particularly at local level, and we suffer from a real shortage of those. I hope the Government will work with the profession to deliver a workforce strategy to get more people particularly into the local authority sector, because all too often those who are good are lost to the private sector. I hope those are issues we can take forward constructively as we take this further.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Labour party and I understand and accept that the planning system in its current form is problematic and needs to be reformed, but the plans this Government have presented just hand power over to the developers—those developers who have donated loads of money to the Tory party recently—and away from communities such as mine in Bolton South East.
The Tory Government’s proposals fail to address the wider issues that face our country. The climate crisis is more acute than ever, and without a concerted effort to integrate planning infrastructure and development, we will struggle to achieve our net zero targets. We need sustainable transport. Bolton South East has a disproportionate number of people who are reliant on public transport—70% of them do not have a car—yet none of these plans talk about integrated solutions for the community. It is only Labour with Andy Burnham in power in Greater Manchester that is leading the way on an integrated transport network and the public ownership of buses.
There are currently 1.6 million people on housing waiting lists, and the Government’s projection is to build 100,000 to 340,000 homes per year for the next 10 years, but these do not appear to be homes for social renting, affordable homes, retirement home or sheltered accommodation. There is a huge need for those types of accommodation, and I would encourage the Government to plan for those types of houses as well as those for first-time buyers. We need to concentrate on the people who are the most vulnerable economically and in many other ways. They need to be accommodated.
The new planning laws will be on top of the national planning policy framework introduced in 2012, which allowed green belt land to be used to build homes. We have seen that in my constituency, where a local developer, Peel Holdings, was able to get permission to build thousands of homes on the green belt even though it owned many brownfield sites that it had acquired over the years and that it could quite easily have built on. However, everyone knows that brownfield sites are more  expensive. We need social housing, and there are brownfield sites in my constituency that could easily benefit from development, so I would like the Government to set a target to ensure that these houses are built. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, housing is required, but it is required in the right areas. We cannot have thousands of houses in the salubrious parts of a town or community while people in the inner cities or towns do not have homes.

Claire Coutinho: I think everyone in the Chamber agrees that it is our duty to ensure that this country has the homes we need. It is our moral duty not only to the next generation but to the current generation, because having the right homes in the right places is key to our ability to remain a competitive country in an increasingly competitive world. If we lose that edge, we lose the means to pay for the excellent public services we all enjoy. Badly formed planning policy comes up time and again when we look at economists’ views of the challenges ahead for British growth and prosperity.
However, we also have a duty to ensure that those needs are balanced against the needs and legitimate concerns of existing communities, such as the ones I represent in East Surrey. Those who worry about flood risks, infrastructure constraints or house building harming nature should be heard, and solutions should be found. That is why I support ambitious approaches towards restoring biodiversity, including my campaign for a new “wild belt” designation and the Government’s plans to create new biodiversity units that will help us to create connected corridors that can be wildlife-rich. I notice that those plans have not been mentioned by the Opposition today.
I back local input to a strict standard of beauty and homes design, and increasing online access to local plans so that more people can have a say. We should also prioritise the next generation of local families and key workers for new affordable homes, and ensure that infrastructure needs are addressed. The Government are looking at these things, and I thank the Ministers for their ongoing conversations with me. I would like to see greater flexibility on what the right number of homes should be, based on local areas’ capacity to deliver. Combining all of this together would mean that we were increasing local input, not reducing it.
I have talked about the difficulty of achieving the balance between protecting existing neighbours and providing for future ones, but however hard that is, it is right that the Government are trying to grasp the nettle, and it is morally defunct of the Opposition to try to face two ways at once. We saw this in Chesham and Amersham, where the Liberal Democrats campaigned locally against their own national position on house building and HS2. We also see it in Labour’s motion today, and I have some sympathy with it, but Labour is trying to create division on the Government side of the House in the hope of making political capital while not contributing any ideas to solving a national problem. I wonder how that sits with the constituents they were elected to serve.
In 2008-09, when Labour was most recently in government, only 75,000 new homes were started—the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. In some  of the areas where Labour is currently in power, where there are lots of brownfield opportunities, widespread support for house building—I should know: I used to be one of those offering support—and considerable Government funding, Labour is falling far behind. Sadiq Khan promised to build 116,000 new affordable homes by 2022; as of 2021, he has started fewer than half that number.
The problem is Labour, first in national Government and now in local government. Instead of working constructively together to ensure that this country has the homes it needs, Labour just tries to create division, sits on the fence and ignores its own record of failure.

Tim Farron: Probably the most bogus claim made for the Government’s planning reforms is that they will lead to more homes. Exactly the opposite is true. Their reforms will incentivise the building of fewer, unaffordable, expensive properties rather than the more affordable homes we want. That was the message I heard when I was knocking on doors in Chesham and Amersham and in my communities in Cumbria over the past few days.

James Cartlidge: To be clear, is it the hon. Gentleman’s view that the Government should build more homes?

Tim Farron: Yes, and the Government’s plan is to do exactly the opposite. Their plan is to allow developers to build a smaller number of executive homes that we do not need, rather than the larger number of affordable homes that we do need. That is against the will and wishes of many people who live in communities around London, in Cumbria and elsewhere in the country. Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will—along with, clearly, many on the Opposition Benches—vote with the courage of our convictions to defend our communities, and we will vote for more affordable housing. My challenge to Conservative Members is: “Do you care for your communities? Are you listening to yours? If so, you should have the courage of your convictions and vote with us in the Lobby tonight.”
Let me say more about the planning reforms. It is about not just what is wrong with them but what is not in them. Yes, they will lead to fewer affordable homes and cut local communities out of the planning process—it is an insult to the electorate not to listen to them and allow them to have their say—but the reforms are also a colossal missed opportunity.
Let me share with the House something that is and has been happening in my community during the pandemic. Over many years in places such as the lakes and the Yorkshire dales, there has been a steady erosion of local affordable homes for our communities. We see our communities become ghost towns as a large number and growing proportion of homes in those communities become second homes and holiday lets, leaving us without a vibrant permanent population.
As any geologist will tell us, erosion can take aeons and aeons, and then sometimes a whole cliff will fall into the sea in one go. That is what has happened in the past 15 months: there has been a 32% increase in the number of holiday lets in the Lake district. Up to 80% of all houses sold in Cumbria during the pandemic went into the second-home market. Those are the figures.  The anecdotal, person-by-person reality includes the woman I spoke to recently in Ambleside who pays £700 a month for her small flat in Ambleside but has been kicked out so that her landlord can charge £1,000 a week on Airbnb. That is what is happening: a kind of lakeland clearances whereby people are being moved out of Cumbria because people can make more money without there being a local resident population.
I plead with the Government and the Secretary of State; it is great to see him in his place now: when drastic things such as a pandemic happen out of the blue, drastic action needs to happen, and it needs to happen right now, this side of the summer. I suggest that the Secretary of State amends planning law to make holiday lets and second homes separate categories of planning use, so that local authorities and national parks can say, “Enough is enough: if we do not make changes, Ambleside’s community is potentially dying out, and Kirkby Lonsdale’s, Windermere’s and even Kendal’s will, too.”
I am determined that our communities should move out of this pandemic stronger and more vibrant. They should not find a situation in which there just is not a local community anymore. Rather than introducing planning reforms that undermine local communities, the Secretary of State has the opportunity to change planning law to protect them, to stop these lakeland clearances and to make our communities last well into the future.

Bob Seely: I note what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said about second homes, because we have a similar problem on the Isle of Wight.
I genuinely wish the Secretary of State and Ministers well on this issue. Our planning reforms should be community led, levelling-up led and environment led, and it would be great to see even more evidence of that, if at all possible. Communities help development to happen, as long as they can shape it. One initial study has shown that places with neighbourhood plans accept more development. Therefore, working with communities gets better results than treating them as the planning equivalent of a foie gras goose, with ever more housing shoved down them. Stripping away democracy, at whatever level, should be avoided by a Conservative Government.
When it comes to levelling up, I believe that the standard method is still a problem at the heart of this matter, and many red wall colleagues are beginning to realise this. In the words of one expert report, the current housing methodology
“systematically disadvantages poorer parts of the country, particularly in the North and Midlands”.
Simply put, we are actively depriving the red wall of investment, because the construction jobs, the infrastructure jobs and the household spend jobs all come down to the south-east. If this process continues reductio in absurdum, like some planning wheel of doom, it is a road to nowhere. We need a better system. I hope the Minister will take that and what others are saying here to heart.
As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, we need a recycling agenda. I suggest that the Secretary of State puts at the heart of that a tax on greenfield sites, to recognise the true cost of greenfield, and the money should go into major campaigns—a massive process—of  cleaning up brownfield. It is a disgrace that 70% of finishes on the Isle of Wight are on greenfield. Why, when we have 35 potential brownfield sites? We need to do more with greenfield in the way of taxing it, then spending the money on brownfield. There are many more ideas, and I will be writing to the Minister this week about this, because it is such an important problem. We need to do more to prevent land banking, to ensure legal priority for brownfield and to provide more powers for compulsory purchase. We have 600 empty homes on the Isle of Wight. If the Minister wants to do something to help us on the Island, let the council compulsorily purchase long-term empty buildings and we will take 600 people straight off our housing list.
We need to get our planning right. Surely we have reached the end of using unsustainable, car-dependent, low-density greenfield sites. Our reliance on them must come to an end. We need clear principles, and I recommend these to the Secretary of State: planning should be community-led, environment-led, and levelling-up-led.

Catherine McKinnell: I am regularly contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about the scale and pace of housing development across Newcastle’s outer west, and the long-term failure to deliver the infrastructure and amenities that residents of new housing estates were promised. I share their concern that the current planning system does not have people at its heart. Residents will find it incredible that the Government’s preferred solution is to give housing developers even more of a free hand, while imposing an entirely arbitrary cities uplift on Newcastle’s new-build target. Residents on new estates in Newcastle have all too often felt abandoned by developers, who seem eager to move on to the next lucrative round of house building long before new estates have the amenities and infrastructure needed to make sustainable communities.
The Government’s plans would take the planning system further away from where it should be headed. As the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee points out, the Government’s new planning proposals are essentially housebuilding proposals. Important non-housing areas are barely mentioned at all, while development and landowner interests are clearly favoured over those of local communities.
That is not where we should be taking our planning system. Local shops, employment, transport links, leisure and climate change are all key elements that should form a fundamental part of any cohesive planning system that shapes the communities our constituents live in.

Jonathan Edwards: I cannot profess knowledge of the situation in England, but Wales is very much pro development biased toward developers. Essentially, the first part of the process is the local development plan, and once the land is on that document, the planning application is a done deal. Is that the situation in England?

Catherine McKinnell: The problem is further compounded by the revised housing formula. After the application of the Government’s arbitrary cities uplift, the requirement of 1,400 new dwellings per year in Newcastle is 30% higher than the Newcastle and Gateshead  core strategy and urban core plan’s average target for 2020-30, so I worry that the over-allocation of land for housing, particularly in a local authority such as Newcastle, where the boundary is tightly drawn, will further affect the availability of land for other commercial and community uses. Newcastle could be looking at a perfect storm emerging from the proposals, with accelerated house building alongside a radically reformed planning system that both reduces local say and lacks focus on the non-housing elements of the planning system, which are essential to creating sustainable joined-up communities. That is not the direction our planning system should be taking.
So many residents in my constituency have been left for years without the kind of amenities that most people take for granted, such as GPs, dentists, proper transport links, schools, or even a local shop. We cannot see the failure to deliver on infrastructure and local facilities, which has been problematic for many thousands of residents in Newcastle Great Park, replicated across Newcastle’s outer west, where thousands of homes are already being built and 1,000 more are in the pipeline. Ministers cannot pretend that housing can be built in isolation from much needed support structures, for both business and leisure. Such structures are key to ensuring that any planning system seeks to shape not just houses, but good communities and places for our constituents to live.

Chris Green: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She captured some of the concerns that my constituents, and I am sure those of colleagues around the country, have, in terms of having the house building, yet not having yet the infrastructure and facilities that ought to go along with it. I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will place those concerns at the heart of what he wants to do with the Planning Bill and ensure that that is improved on. We just have to help and support him in getting there in whatever ways we see fit.
Local planning and house building is almost the No.1 issue in my constituency. In so many ways, it aggravates and grates upon my constituents, whether it is the development at Hulton Park or Horwich golf course. People campaign hard and intensively against a development, and either they see the development go ahead, or the developers come back again and again with new alternatives. It is very frustrating. It is important to get clarity and certainty over which plans can go ahead: either we get the infrastructure and other support—whether schools, GP services or roads—or the plan is vetoed, so we have that certainty for local residents.
I welcome the Government’s strong agenda to develop and focus on brownfield sites, and the commitment of £75 million to Greater Manchester to focus on and get brownfield development first. David Greenhalgh, leader of Bolton Council, has done much to ensure that development in Bolton happens on brownfield sites first. The system does not always lend itself to his championing that cause, but he is leading the way. I welcome the commitment made by the Secretary of State’s predecessor to a spine road on Horwich Loco Works to enable  building on brownfield sites. That is the kind of development we want to see and that the Government are championing and enabling.
Another problem in Greater Manchester—this was highlighted earlier—is that devolution plans for Greater Manchester to enable local leadership should have helped to deliver a plan for 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester, of which Bolton and Wigan boroughs would be two. Unfortunately, the Mayor, Andy Burnham, has not delivered on that. He vetoed the first version and did not enable it to be delivered. We are now on the third version, so it is causing a huge number of problems for many residents and it is not enabling the delivery of vital infrastructure. I would welcome it if the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister ensured, if the Greater Manchester spatial framework is not delivered, that the Bolton plan is.

Andrew Slaughter: If the Government’s contention is that the current planning system is flawed and needs reform, I can only agree. One problem is political interference. Last week, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) persuaded the Secretary of State to call in a much needed development of 133 social and affordable homes that would benefit my constituents as much as his. Far too little social housing is being built. As Shelter points out, in the last five years, on average, there have been 6,500 social homes a year—a 10th of what is needed.
It is not just the number of homes that is lacking; good design, energy efficiency and space standards do not get much of a look in either. There is an inequality of arms between short-staffed planning departments and local residents, on the one hand, and well-resourced developers on the other.
If the proposed reforms addressed these and other inequities, they would be welcome, but they do not; in fact, they make them worse. Developers will dominate a system of decision making that sidelines or eliminates public consultation and the role of local councils. In place of section 106 agreements, there will be an infrastructure levy that aims, at best, to fund the current pitiful number of social homes, but there is no explanation of how it will do even that. The free-for-all allowed by permitted development means that we are building the slums of the future—badly designed, cramped, ugly and not fit for habitation. Neighbourhood planning is to go; so too are planning committees. Objections will not be heard in “growth” or “renewal” areas. These proposals are not about challenging NIMBYs or helping young people with families on to the housing ladder but about an increasingly corrupt relationship between the Conservative party and the major developers and builders: cash for profits; donations for deregulation.
I asked my local planning experts at the Hammersmith Society what they would like to see from reform. They pointed out that, on the one hand, public input without rights of appeal is already often brushed aside, while on the other, allowing third-party appeals could see development grind to a halt. A compromise might be for local planners to develop specific briefs for sites in consultation with design panels, setting out what is and is not acceptable, discouraging both the forlorn objection and the speculative application.
With the right approach from Government, both residents and developers may be willing to compromise, but the current proposals are a developers’ charter surrendering both town and countryside to those who, for their own gain, will ruin our collective past without benefiting our individual futures.

John Redwood: I support the Government’s passion for home ownership. They are right that we need to do more to extend that opportunity to a new generation. It was, after all, an opportunity that previous generations took advantage of, enjoying the pleasures that can come from owning one’s own home and doing with it rather more of the things one wishes to do.
I support the Government’s wish to bring forward more brownfield development, because there are still many sites around the country that could be tidied up and better used. I trust that, within that, the Government wish to ease the planning system sufficiently so that where we need to convert tired or redundant commercial buildings into residential properties there will be no great planning impediment in doing so.
I strongly support the wish of the Government to do something extra to make sure that developers with planning permissions build out the permissions they have under a proper local plan. In the borough of Wokingham, of which I represent a part, we have been afflicted in recent years by some landowners and developers gaming the system. Thousands of planning permissions are outstanding, and yet the local plan, which tries to protect areas, has been overwhelmed at times by people lodging appeals on land not within the local plan for development and inspectors deciding that we did not have enough land because of the slow rate of build against all the permissions that are there.
Above all, we need a planning system that can reconcile our wish to protect the green gaps, the green fields, the farms and the woods—indeed, to expand the woods—and at the same time to make enough land available for housing. The Office for National Statistics has shown that, in the year to March 2020, we welcomed some 715,000 extra people into our country. Although 403,000 of them left, that meant that there were still 312,000 extra people to house, and not all of those going freed up homes in the right place for the incomers. We need to have sustainable immigration. Of course we need to welcome people into our country, but they should expect decent standards of housing, and the gap is too large. We now have a backlog of demand and need, and if we keep inviting in hundreds of thousands of extra people, we are not going to catch up. I urge the Government to make things easier so that the trade-offs between environmental protection and more concrete for housing are not so difficult.
Finally, on levelling up, which I strongly support, over the years a large number of executive homes have been built in Wokingham and places like it, attracting people with great qualifications—people capable of commanding well above average earnings. We need to provide that kind of housing if we wish to attract companies and the investment to level up, and we should not put all that housing into the areas that have already been very successful.

Margaret Greenwood: The Government’s planning proposals are a developers’ charter, removing the right of local people to challenge inappropriate developments in their own street or neighbourhood. The importance of protecting that right and ensuring that the planning system involves local residents was abundantly clear to me last week when I met residents in West Kirby campaigning against an 18-metre high 5G mast on a residential street—a campaign I fully support.
The Government intend that new-style local plans will divide land in England into three zones: growth, renewal and protected. While residents will be consulted on these zones during the development of a local plan, once the plan is completed, they will have very little say—and in the vast majority of cases, no say at all—on what gets built in growth and renewal areas.
Protected areas, which will include the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas, local wildlife sites, areas with significant flood risk and important areas of green space, will continue to be subject to the current planning application process. However, even if an area is designated as protected, that does not necessarily mean there will not be any development; it just means there will be no automatic planning permission. Clearly, under this Government, such areas are not safe from development.
People in Wirral West value the green belt very highly, and many are understandably concerned that Leverhulme Estates, which owns much of the green belt in Wirral, is arguing for the release of the green belt for building, despite Wirral Council’s commitment to a brownfield-only policy. People have contacted me recently with their concerns about seeing surveyors out in the fields around Greasby and between Thingwall and Barnston. They are worried that these green fields are at risk.
People in Wirral West want to see a clear commitment from Government to protect the green belt, as do I. The Government’s proposals offer no such thing. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s recent report “The future of the planning system in England” stated that:
“All individuals must still be able to comment and influence upon all individual planning proposals.”
That is a basic fundamental right, yet it is one that the Government want to take away from people. CPRE, the countryside charity, has expressed concern, saying:
“The Planning Bill looks set to prioritise developers’ needs over local communities”.
Wirral West residents have made their feelings clear. Many have written to me saying that the proposed changes, which would allow some planning proposals to proceed without approval by elected councillors, are bad news for local democracy, communities and our environment, and they are right. The Government should give local people and their elected representatives more say over the development of their neighbourhoods, not less. I therefore call on Members on the Government Benches to support this motion and send a clear message to Ministers that the right of communities to object to individual planning applications must be protected.

Andrew Griffith: We in West Sussex are on the frontline of the debate on planning, squeezed between the coast and the capital. In my short time here, I have spoken many times against proposed developments on greenfield land at Adversane, Ashington, Buck Barn, Barnham, Mayfield, Kirdford and Wisborough Green. Today, we can add Rock Road, Storrington to that list, where Clarion Housing Group is trying to build on more than 30 acres of species-rich woodland, against the wishes of local people and the neighbourhood plan.
The homes that the nation needs should be built on brownfield land or in urban areas. A perfectly sensible national target for new dwellings is roughly one new dwelling for every 160 adults living in an area. That would be reasonable if everyone paid their fair share. In the south-east, London built only one new dwelling for every 400 of its people, and of that diminished figure, just one in 10 were sold to a conventional owner-occupier. The construction rate of tall buildings, which soared under Mayor Johnson, has plummeted by half. Under Mayor Khan, we see more foot dragging than on a bunioned millipede.
Faced with a hostile environment and weighed down by planning conditions and social housing mandates, it is no wonder that developments look to where the grass is literally greener. We do not even have to travel to London. The Green and Labour-led Brighton Council is proposing 16 developments on 28 green hectares when there is abundant brownfield land inside that city, so I congratulate the Conservative councillors there.
We must learn lessons from one of Aesop’s Fables, “The North Wind and the Sun”. I know that the Secretary of State, who is a very decent man, recognises the challenge, but blowing harder simply increases the level of noise and sees communities understandably pull their cloak tighter for protection. As we reform planning, let us instead bring out the sun and unleash a field of carrots that would put Beatrix Potter’s Farmer McGregor to shame.

Taiwo Owatemi: Of all the problems that my constituents bring to me on a regular basis, it is planning and development that, time and again, possesses some of the greatest difficulties. The Government’s plans to take power from communities and hand them to developers will be nothing short of a disaster for our green spaces. Already, local people have too little control over which developments are built near to them. Communities such as Keresley in my constituency risk being subsumed into the city suburbs by plans that they did not approve and are now fearful of losing much of their unique village identity. Even when comparatively few homes are under construction, those scrutinising plans often lack the powers needed to ensure that new additions are in character with existing homes, with strict enforcement made virtually impossible by loopholes created by Whitehall.
In addition, local councils such as Coventry City Council are being forced to build tens of thousands more homes than residents require and, if they refuse, not only would yet more homes be foisted upon them, but those developments would be unleashed to sprawl outwards with zero control for those most affected locally.
Worse still, new developments often include little decent social housing and too often lack the local public services required to support new homes. Put simply, our planning laws are already widely unbalanced, and it is time that we put local people before the big developers’ profit margins.
As the Government craft their latest changes to planning policies, Ministers must at last take the time to engage with those affected by development—those who feel powerless in the face of mass building projects. When local voices are ignored, the result is the wrong houses built in the wrong places. Instead of lucrative estates constructed by Conservative party donors, Britain needs planning and development rules that listen and respond to local people and local needs. Handing power back to communities and their representatives in local government can unlock a brighter future for how we meet our housing needs. No community can be expected to support a development that it was powerless to shape.
Once, those on the Conservative Benches spoke of a property-owning democracy, yet now they seek to strip away the last few democratic safeguards in our planning system. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of families are left renting poor quality houses for sky-high rents, while others are forced to move away from the only community that they have ever known thanks to development designed to serve only property investors.
The Government are putting the profits of a greedy few ahead of the concerns of thousands whose communities are faced with bulldozers, so I call on Members from all parties to stand up to be counted against the Government’s proposals as they seek to permanently rob communities of the powers to shape their neighbourhoods and their own futures.

Nigel Evans: The wind-ups will begin promptly at 7.10, and apologies to the probably 17 Members who will fail to be called.

Simon Clarke: It is a pleasure to be called to speak today, because Britain needs more good homes. That is an undeniable fact. We witness it in the ever-increasing house prices right across our country. We witness it in the ever more cramped accommodation that too many families are forced to settle for. We witness it in the ever more expensive and dysfunctional rental market trap, which makes it so hard for so many people of my age to buy their first home.
The Government have sensible proposals on the table to allow communities to designate those areas that are appropriate for development and those that should be protected; to make building beautiful homes a top priority; to empower communities to set out the right design codes to ensure that new homes are in keeping with their surroundings; and to create an infrastructure levy to fund the new roads, schools and GP surgeries that these new developments need in order not to impose a detrimental effect on the existing community.
Like any constituency MP, I know just how hard it is to discuss matters relating to planning, but we are sent to this House to do the right thing for the country, and I am clear that this must mean cutting the ropes that are preventing us from building the homes that our people need. For too long, we have attempted to address what  is fundamentally a supply-side problem with demand-side solutions. Frankly, that is the easier politics of the situation, though we owe it to the country to be honest that the fundamental issue is one of land supply. Even if someone is fortunate enough to own their own home, especially in the parts of the capital or the south where prices are so high, it is their children and grandchildren who are the victims of the impasse that our inefficient planning system has created.
We meet today in the shadow of the Chesham and Amersham by-election. I wish the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) every success in her new role representing that constituency and welcome her to this House, but this was an election won in the very worst spirit of pandering to nimbyism, denying the growing social injustice that we are witnessing and privileging the interests of the haves over the have-nots in our society. This may be all right for the Liberal Democrats, whose long tradition of saying one thing locally and one thing nationally has reasserted itself; it may be all right for a desperate Labour party whose speeches collectively today have been nothing more than a terrible mixture of, frankly, hypocrisy and innuendo directed at those on the Government Benches; but it is not a choice open to my party.
To govern is to be sent here to make the tough choices on behalf of the nation, and we have to face the reality that there is nothing inevitable about the broken housing market that we have at the moment. It is broken because we have lacked the political courage to fix it. That needs to change. The Government have come forward with moderate and pragmatic proposals to unlock more land for housing while protecting the legitimate interests of existing communities and looking after their areas. It is high time for us to take this forward and build the homes that Britain needs.

Darren Jones: The planning process is part of our democracy. It is one of the reasons we elect local councillors and one of the reasons we have planning committees that are independent of party political leadership. Citizens in every community across the country have a stake and a say in what happens in their local area, but the Conservatives’ planning reforms pull the rug from under our local democracy and instead roll out the red carpet for the big developers, with the automatic granting of outline planning permission; statutory presumptions in favour of development; planning notices moving to online only; no real role for existing neighbourhood plans; still not enough action on net zero energy-efficient housing resources and low-carbon heat; proposals that do not go far enough to deliver more council and affordable housing; and, based on recent permitted development rights, high-street shops that can be converted into often low-quality housing, with limited standards on space, light or community structure, and mobile phone masts that can be seemingly plonked anywhere. All in all, it is a complete shambles.
Let me take a few examples from my constituency. In Horfield, a developer bought a large house on the corner of a street and is developing a complex of bedrooms with shared living spaces. Local residents with concerns were able to submit them to the planning process, but under these proposals, the development could have had its planning permission automatically granted.  In Avonmouth, we have had a long-running battle with an over-concentration of low-quality waste processing sites. Each new application for such a site now receives very high engagement from local residents, but under these proposals, a statutory presumption in favour of development could now apply.
On the Downs, a proposal to convert an old toilet block into a new coffee shop required the publication of physical notices. Even in those circumstances, many local residents did know about them. Under these proposals, those notices will now just be online. In Lawrence Weston, we have a very successful local neighbourhood development plan, but under these proposals, all that hard work by local residents now stands for nothing, with neighbourhood plans being effectively closed down.
In Henleaze, a freeholder is trying to use permitted development rights to build more flats on top of existing ones. Leaseholders sought to buy the freehold to prevent a future development, but under these proposals, the cost of the freehold has massively increased because of speculative development, making it impossible for the existing tenants to afford it. The Government promised to revive high streets, but under these proposals, they are just closing them down.
Lastly, for the thousands of young people and families on low incomes, these proposals offer little hope. We need more council houses, more affordable homes, a route to home ownership where tenants can save for their deposit, and low-carbon, energy-efficient houses now, and we need to protect the rights of citizens to be a valued part of our local democracy. It is therefore evident that the Government need to get back to the drawing board.

Jack Lopresti: In the last year, the Government have built roughly 244,000 additional homes for our people, the highest number for 33 years. While that is good news, in my view it is merely a step in the right direction. Even if we achieve the target of 300,000 additional homes a year in this Parliament, it will be nowhere near enough to even begin addressing the housing crisis.
In my constituency, as I have said before in the House, the average house price is around £300,000, which is nine times the average salary. It is absurd that most young people today cannot even aspire to get on the property ladder unless they have family help or inherit some money. It is not morally right and it is not sustainable, and this is not just about private ownership. According to Shelter, which I met a couple of weeks ago and am doing some work with, there are hundreds of thousands of people stuck in temporary accommodation across the country. Even in my constituency, the local council’s Homechoice website says:
“There is a severe shortage of homes in the South Gloucestershire area. Most applicants on the Housing Register will have to wait a long time for re-housing and many will not be re-housed at all.”
It is therefore absolutely vital that we increase supply.
The Government are investing £11.5 billion to unlock affordable homes across the country, but to really increase supply we have to reform and speed up the planning process, which is precisely what the Government are trying to do. We must make the system faster, simpler and more modern in order to deliver what we need. We have to make it accessible, using modern technology  and data to make it much more efficient. That is why I am again disappointed to hear colleagues from all parts of the House trying to pre-emptively kill any reform to score political points and shore up support from people in their constituencies who are already on the housing ladder. We cannot keep using the excuse about the wrong houses in the wrong places to justify saying no to any new development.
These reforms will make planning and building simpler and more transparent. We need to make building homes on a much larger scale easier for everyone, from the smallest local builder to the largest social housing corporation. We have to plan to get the diggers moving, but we cannot ignore the fact that the green belt is strangling housing growth in some of our cities. There are many areas of our country that should be protected, but less than roughly 10% of the land available is built on, so we have space. We can build new towns, and we need to be more open-minded about what solutions might look.
As I have said before, the housing crisis is shredding the social contract. We risk condemning an entire generation of young people to a huge amount of student debt and no prospect whatsoever of ever owning their own home, and with renting becoming ever more unaffordable, to being stuck in shared housing for the foreseeable future. This must go beyond narrow party politics. This is our duty, as somebody said earlier. We are elected to come here and make tough decisions, but the right decisions, so we must increase supply and reform the planning system, so that we can build enough homes for all our people for the future.

Derek Thomas: I am so glad to speak in this debate, because if there was no problem in Cornwall with housing, we would not be having it. We need the planning White Paper to deliver the right housing in the right places for the right people, and we cannot get close to delivering on the Government’s levelling-up agenda unless we get the housing right.
This debate is about local involvement in planning, and local priorities are at the heart of this. I know that my local community in west Cornwall and on Scilly would rally behind house building if my constituents knew that local families would be provided with homes they can afford and can call their own. I ask the Secretary of State to take a careful look at the situation in Cornwall, where local people find it difficult to get on the housing ladder. The demand to live in such a beautiful place as ours has created great problems for people who already live locally. With the fresh administration on Conservative-led Cornwall Council and incentives from the Government to help first-time buyers, I am of the belief that we can fix this problem. With the planning White Paper, that is made even more certain.
The planning White Paper must and can sweep in three areas of opportunity, all of which are consistent with the Government’s levelling-up agenda, and they all depend on a robust local plan. The first is homes built for people who need them. In places such as Cornwall and other areas referred to this afternoon, we need to look carefully at how housing policy can ensure that the houses being built are available to local people.

Steve Double: Does my hon. Friend share my view that part of the housing crisis in Cornwall is very much driven by second and holiday home ownership? Does he therefore agree that it is time for the Government to look seriously at requiring planning permission for a home that will not be a primary residence?

Derek Thomas: I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention because I was about to come to that subject and credit him with that very idea. It is absolutely the case that we live in a beautiful part of the world; Mr Deputy Speaker, do come and visit, but please do not buy a house there—not until we get this sorted.
My hon. Friend is right that people want houses in our area—they want to have their bolthole there—but that has caused huge problems for communities such as Mousehole, St Ives and Porthleven in my constituency. We do not want to interfere in the market, but the idea right now is that we have some sort of planning condition for properties that are not going to be a primary residence.
This White Paper must sweep in stronger local communities, where family homes help the viability of the pub, the local post office and the local school. I have a situation right now in Coverack; its fantastic community school has years of history, yet there are just not enough children in the area to sustain it. We have a plan, but for the plan to survive it needs housing built for local families in the next three years.
Finally, the planning White Paper must sweep in opportunities for vibrant small and medium-sized enterprises that can provide apprenticeships and skilled jobs as these new homes are built and as existing ones are retrofitted for the benefit of our environment. We want to ensure that we live in homes that are healthy and safe, that provide the opportunity for young people to attain better in school and that are good for older people as they age.
I am glad to have been able to speak in this debate on this critical issue. I would be absolutely wrong not to stand up for my constituents and those in the rest of Cornwall who are struggling today to be able to live in the place that they call home.

Wera Hobhouse: These planning reforms are the biggest change to the planning system since 1947, yet this White Paper is a jumbled series of aspirations and statements that do not amount to a coherent document. It would fail the test that every local plan has to go through.
Liberal Democrats believe in community empowerment. I believe that the people of Bath and their elected local representatives understand the needs of our community better than Ministers or, indeed, those developers who just want to make a profit. Yet there will be no more local input into application development, nor into public hearings. The proposals are less strategic, less flexible and less democratic. What is more, there is no evidence that the reforms will actually make any difference to the number of homes being built. Local councils approve nine in 10 planning applications. In fact, the number of homes granted planning permission has far outpaced the number of homes being built. More than 1 million homes that have been granted planning permission in  the last decade have yet to be built. If the Government are trying to address the housing crisis, this is completely the wrong answer.
Any review of England’s planning system must consider not only the delivery of housing, but the many roles that planning authorities play in creating great spaces for their communities: connectivity, accessibility, affordability, access to green spaces, schools and infrastructure provision. All those things contribute to ensuring quality of life in our communities, as, indeed, does the quality of housing we build.
Every new home should be built with the climate and ecological emergency in mind. Domestic heating accounts for about 14% of the UK’s carbon emissions. We cannot hope to reach our emissions targets without proper plans to decarbonise heating. Climate action begins at home. Rather than undermining local authorities, the Government should be directing their energy towards building greener, more resilient and more sustainable homes.
Planning continues to be one of the areas in which every local community gets involved and local democracy plays such a vital role in our community. The current proposals are an assault on democracy, and the emphatic Lib Dem win in Chesham and Amersham—fought on issues of local democracy—should be a wake-up call for this Government. The right of local communities to have a say over planning in their area must be protected.

Jane Stevenson: It is a pleasure to have the chance to speak in today’s debate.
This is an emotive issue. For most people, a home is the biggest purchase they will ever make. Where we buy our home—our local neighbourhood—has a huge impact on our quality of life. Planning decisions affect our access to public services, jobs, retail and leisure facilities, and quality green spaces. To listen to the Opposition, I would think that we lived under a perfect planning system. Our planning system is decades old. Anyone who has served in local government knows how clunky it is and how little involvement local people have in planning decisions. Local neighbourhood plans take several years to draw up and even then they are not respected. In the ward I previously represented as a Wolverhampton city councillor, there was a clear local neighbourhood plan that was against any homebuilding on a local nature reserve—on the site of the Wolverhampton Environment Centre. The council has ploughed on regardless and has plans for a number of homes. Local people are still campaigning against the development, assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). As the Minister said earlier, only 1% of local people are getting involved in planning decisions, and I applaud the Government for their commitment to an easier system for local people to navigate. Online maps with design codes and the ability to really see what is suggested in a good level of detail will increase engagement.
I again draw Ministers’ attention to the issue of cross-border co-operation. My northern border with South Staffs is green belt and it is under threat. My constituents are gravely concerned that they have no say, and what suits South Staffordshire does not suit Wednesfield and Bushbury. As any development  would add significant pressure on public services in Wolverhampton, I seek reassurance that the voices of people affected by large developments should be heard even across the county boundary.
As time is short, I will conclude by applauding the ambition of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and not just because it will be my new neighbour in Wolverhampton. Levelling up opportunity includes the opportunity to own one’s own home. This has simply been a pipe dream for so many of my constituents. Beautiful affordable homes helping ordinary working people to fulfil the dream of home ownership is absolutely the right thing to do. Building on brownfield land, and indeed investing in the National Brownfield Institute in my constituency, is the right thing to do.
There is so much to address around planning: making retirement housing a positive move that will free up family homes, ending land banking, innovative design and bringing empty homes back into use. Modernising the planning system is a difficult nettle to grasp, but it is long overdue as the current system has not been fit for purpose and it will not deliver the homes we desperately need.

Florence Eshalomi: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on such an important issue for my constituents.
Ministers are right to say that fundamental reform is needed. The current planning system is not fit for purpose. As I have said in this House before, it is too distant from the people it most directly impacts. That leads to developments that do not work for the communities who have to live there for years. For too long the system has been unfairly weighted in favour of developers. The Government’s proposals will not increase the ability of local people to have their say; they will dilute it. The proposed introduction of a Whitehall-appointed board of developers will lead to local people no longer having the ability to object to inappropriate developments. It will remove the right of local people and councillors to have a say at key points in the planning process. They will have little opportunity to influence the design of specific planning applications, as most design codes will be site-specific and so no longer subject to local consultation.
As an MP for a central London constituency with some of the highest levels of building in the country, every day I see the negative impact that unsystematic development has on communities in Vauxhall. We have hundreds of tower blocks going up that often block out daylight for neighbours. We see huge telecommunication masts placed in the middle of small streets in conservation areas against the wishes of residents. We see communities disrupted by the introduction of 24-hour businesses that bring little or no benefit to the area.
Planning can be viewed as boring or as a nimby subject. This is often because residents feel powerless to influence local decisions. I pay tribute to the community groups across Vauxhall who work hard to challenge some of the proposed developments, volunteering their time, effort, expertise and knowledge to read through pages of designs, attending consultation meetings and responding by focusing on the needs of the local community. Residents in Vauxhall understand and appreciate the need for growth and regeneration, but that must be  done with the consent of the people who have to live with the daily consequences of planning decisions. Everyone wants to see local people and their local elected representatives given a bigger, not a smaller, say over planning decisions. I therefore urge the Government to rethink their proposals.

Claudia Webbe: When it comes to planning, everyone except wealthy landlords gets a raw deal from this Government. Since 2010, the Conservatives have slashed funding for new homes, refused to regulate for higher standards, and given a free hand to commercial property developers. The number of Government-funded homes for social rent has fallen by more than 90%, the number of households stuck renting from a private landlord has risen by more than 1 million, and the number of young people who own a home has fallen by almost 900,000. According to Shelter, even before the pandemic half of all renters were only one pay cheque away from losing their homes, with no savings to fall back on. Since then, the Resolution Foundation has found that renters are 40% more likely to work in places that have been shut down by the coronavirus crisis.
The Conservatives plan to reward their developer donors by selling out communities with a new developers’ charter, which will remove powers from elected local representatives, thus silencing residents and tipping the balance of power further in favour of profit-seeking developers. The Government plan to scrap section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, yet section 106 agreements between developers and local authorities result in almost 50% of all affordable homes for social rent. By scrapping section 106 and the community infrastructure levy altogether, the Government risk abandoning one of the chief engines of affordable living. The president of the Royal Institute of British Architects said that this could
“lead to the creation of the next generation of slum housing.”
Rather than making it harder to build homes that are fit for the many, the Government must rapidly increase the construction of council housing and genuinely affordable properties to urgently address the housing crisis. The soaring inequality and exclusion derive from the way land is owned and controlled. The Government make ideological choices to sustain this inequality as a direct attack on the working class.
In my constituency of Leicester East, overcrowding is a huge problem. There are pockets of areas close to Leicester General Hospital with populations of 2,000 living in an area 60,000 square metres in size. That is an average of 32 square metres of space, which is the equivalent of a single box bedroom, without front or back gardens. The UK average is 3,676 square metres of space per person, which is more than a hundred times the amount of space that working-class communities have in my constituency, yet the Government want to downgrade our much-needed and loved local NHS general hospital and sell off its land to property developers.
It is sadly not surprising that this Government act so overwhelmingly in the interests of landowners and landlords when we remember that many of them are in fact landlords themselves, catering for their property developer donors. The Government’s proposal is not about partnership  with communities but about a land grab. Housing is a fundamental right, without which it is impossible to build a secure and happy life. The Government must recognise that fact and begin to work in the interests of all UK—

Nigel Evans: Order. Sorry, Claudia. I call James Daly, who is to finish his speech at 10 past seven.

James Daly: This is a really important debate about the role that local communities play in the planning process. As we have heard from Members from all parties, communities have their own priorities. In Bury, we have a thriving local debate about where we feel housing should be put and the type of housing we need in our area. Organisations such as Bury Folk Keep It Green are at the forefront of the debate. Thousands of my constituents in Bury hold the view that their priority is to protect the green belt, and there is a clear local view that people want their democratically elected politicians to protect it.
Let us look at the Government’s position. The recent response to the Government’s consultation on changes to the current planning system makes it crystal clear that
“meeting housing need is never a reason to cause unacceptable harm to such”
things as the green belt or countryside. Indeed, in that consultation response the Government go on to say:
“We can plan for well designed, beautiful homes, with access to the right infrastructure in the places where people need and want to live while also protecting the environment and green spaces communities most value.”
Why are we not in that situation in Bury? Why are the Greater Manchester spatial framework and other such documents being railroaded through, destroying the green belt in Walshaw and Tottington and at Elton reservoir? The reason is that my local Labour council will not put a local plan in place. How can planning exist in any way, shape or form when our local Labour council do not have a local plan? It is simply beyond belief that, since 1997, we in Bury have not had a local vision of how our communities should look. I implore Bury Labour: please, put a local plan in place that protects our green belt, rather than subcontracting the responsibility—

Nigel Evans: Order. Sorry, James, but it is 10 past 7 and we have to start the wind-ups. At least you got in.

Ruth Cadbury: It is a pleasure to close this debate in which many Back Benchers have expressed their concerns, both about their local areas and about the Government’s stated intention to remove the community voice from local planning decisions. Unfortunately, time does not allow me to acknowledge all the excellent contributions to the debate.
The motion in my name and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) and others, states that
“planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and…calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.”
We have brought it to the House because of the wealth of opposition throughout the country to the Government’s proposals, including from professional institutions, respected non-governmental organisations and councillors of all parties, including the Conservative-led Local Government Association, as well as the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee in its unanimous excellent report.
From the outset, the health and wellbeing of people and communities were at the heart of what became the town and country planning system. Planning is making decisions that are central to our lives and that impact on the generations that follow. It is not about churning out housing “units”. It is about delivering homes—enough homes for the full range of pockets and household types, particularly young people who want to get on with their lives. It is not just about building new estates. It is about place making, incorporating the social, transport and physical infrastructure that makes a place a community and ensuring that there are places of work, providing jobs, regeneration and growth. Planning is about deciding how we move towards net zero, how we enhance and improve our biodiversity, how we protect and enhance our natural environment, and how we build strong and sustainable local high streets.
Many of the challenges we face as a society and as a country will need to be tackled through the planning system. To do that, new development has to be planned and determined with the engagement of people and their elected local representatives, but the Government want to undermine local involvement—in fact, they want to undermine the whole planning system. The proposals in the White Paper, confirmed in the Queen’s Speech, are the next step in the Conservative party and its friends’ 10-year project to dismantle the planning system. They have been doing it for years, such as through permitted development rights and going back to delivering “slum housing”, as the Government’s own adviser described it. Instead of involving local communities in future development decisions, the Government want to limit that. The right to comment on planning applications would be abolished in the new growth areas, potentially in large parts of the country—[Interruption.] Well, which areas are going to be growth areas? It could be large parts of the country, affecting many constituencies.
Planning applications will be determined not by local elected councillors but by unelected planning officers. Even the delegation process will end. The Government’s ambition is to require all local plans, covering all of England, to be delivered within 30 months. That is way beyond the resources not only of most planning departments, but even of most community organisations that already comment on and are involved in planning matters. The task is just too great, the timescale just too tight.
Community engagement and discussion leads to better outcomes. When I speak to voters in my constituency, they consistently tell me that not only do they want truly affordable, good-quality homes, but they want the community services that go with them—sport and play areas, schools, more buses and so on. Hounslow Council’s planning decisions have delivered all of those, and more. The people are being sidelined because the Government do not trust the people. The Government justify tearing up our planning system by saying that they want to build more homes, but as we heard today,  about 1 million homes have permission; they are just not being built out. The Government proposals risk ignoring the issues of quality, affordability or type of housing to be built.
There is a housing crisis—we accept that—but there is no doubt that the Government are delivering the wrong answer to the growing challenge. Too many young people are priced out of the community that they grew up in. The bulk of homes in recent years have been executive homes in the south-east or expensive London flats, all way out of the reach of local people. Defenders of the Government’s plans have said time and again that these proposals are the solution to the housing crisis, as though delivering all these homes would magically bring all house prices down to a level affordable to all young people across England. They know that the solution is far more complex than that.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ruth Cadbury: I am sorry, but I cannot. You have told me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I need to leave enough time for the Secretary of State.
Only in some places are prices low enough that young people can buy. Schemes such as Help to Buy are affordable in my constituency only to a few who earn City salaries or have a large chunk of money from the bank of mum and dad. From 2008, the Labour Government delivered the biggest affordable housing programme in a generation, with £10.8 billion in three years, but it ended with the 2010 election.
We need a planning and housing system that delivers well designed homes in genuinely mixed, well designed communities with proper infrastructure. The Government have had 10 years of tinkering and have undermined the planning system. They have allowed a free-for-all in town and village centres, where any shop can be converted into a flat without requiring planning permission.
No one on the Opposition Benches is suggesting that the planning system should be preserved in stone. It is ludicrously complex, and local plans take too long. There are elements that we welcome in the Government’s proposals—digital technology, a speeding up of the local plan process and a plan for every part of England. We agree, and the Government acknowledge, that there is a desperate shortage of planners with the range of skills needed. However, beyond the removal of public participation and the failure to address the housing crisis properly, so much is missing from the Government’s proposals.
Specialist housing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) mentioned, protecting our high streets, levelling up, protecting and enhancing our natural environment, delivering net zero, mitigating the impact of climate change—the Government talk the talk on those objectives, but do not walk the walk. The specific proposals are not there, and we cannot support the Government without those details. It feels as if they are just not interested.
We need an effective planning system—an improvement on the current system, not its demise. Rather than removing the public and their elected representatives from the picture, the Government need to improve their engagement and retain their right to have a say over planning applications. They can start by giving planning  committees back the power to determine whether shops, office blocks and warehouses should be converted into housing, and if they are approved—because some are suitable—to ensure that they make for good-quality housing.
There are developers that want to work with communities and councillors to develop good places that serve the neighbourhood. I have worked on community plans with just such firms, and they should be encouraged, but too many of the Government’s friends and party donors in the house building industry just see the planning process as a block on their mission to deliver “units” and little else.
We want a planning system that effectively mediates between public and private, between community and decision makers, between local and national—a system that is transparent, open and participative. We need more decent, affordable homes, but a home is more than bricks and mortar, and a community is more than a collection of houses miles away from anything and anywhere. The Government must listen to the people and their elected representatives, not their paymaster donors. We do not need a developers’ charter; we need a charter for communities and delivering homes.
The Government’s gagging of communities, removing the inconvenience of people and their elected councillors from decisions, is perhaps a new version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” If the Minister is unsure about the reforms, he could call a friend, but after last week’s by-election result, I have a feeling that his friend will beg him to withdraw these plans. He could even ask the audience, but some of the audience on the Benches behind him do not seem, from their contributions today, to be too keen to help him. That simply leaves him 50:50—plough on, or ditch these proposals.

Robert Jenrick: The Opposition called this debate today to divide us, but I do not think they have succeeded. What we have heard, time and again, across the House is a very high degree of consensus. Member after Member, from either side of the House, queued up to say that this country needs to build more houses. Some said we have a housing crisis. Some said we have a generational duty to help young people and those on low incomes to enjoy the dream of home ownership, which so many of us—the vast majority of people in this House—have already achieved and are enjoying. Member after Member, including almost every contribution from the Labour party, queued up to say that the current planning system does not work. Some made extremely good and important points. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) said that the single biggest issue she hears from her constituents on is the planning system and how it is failing to address the needs of her constituents. Yet we also heard from the Labour Front-Bench team an argument that we should do absolutely nothing—that we should not take forward any ambitious plans to reform the planning system at all.
The shadow Secretary of State spoke for nine minutes but said absolutely nothing. All he has managed to achieve with this debate has been to shine a light on the  Labour party’s own derisory record on housing. Let us not forget that this Government, back in 2010, inherited levels of house building at the lowest they had been since the 1920s. Those of us who are just about old enough to remember that time recall when John Prescott was Secretary of State in my Department and they recall his flagrant disregard for the green belt, the needs of local communities and local democracy, with his failed approach to regional planning, which we scrapped when we came to power.
Those of us who see what Labour is doing today see how damaging and feeble their policies are. If we look at Wales, we see that, despite the rhetoric we heard today, the Labour party is developing 12 council houses—for the whole of Wales. In Croydon, the Labour borough represented by the shadow Housing Secretary and run by his closest friends and cronies, the local council has gone bankrupt and its housing company, Brick by Brick, has taken tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and has failed to deliver a single home. Its social housing stock is so disgracefully Dickensian that the housing regulator has in recent weeks condemned it. What has the hon. Gentleman said? He has said nothing at all. His Twitter account, which he loves to use to criticise the Conservative party, has fallen as silent as that of Donald Trump—he has said absolutely nothing. So we will take no lectures from the Labour party.
We also heard from the Lib Dems, who have mysteriously gone AWOL now, at the end of the debate. Days after winning a by-election, saying that they would campaign to ditch the planning Bill, they could not even be bothered to turn up to the end of the debate. We have heard the appalling, rank hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats throughout this debate. Their leader went on TV at the weekend to declare himself a “yimby”, but that is very different from what he was saying to people on the doorsteps of Buckinghamshire in recent weeks. It is better to describe him and his party, in the term of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), as a “banana”—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.
Except in practice that is not what some Liberal Democrat councils do. The two Lib Dem Members who did turn up to speak in this debate, the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), both represent areas with Liberal Democrat councils that are building twice the number of homes that the Government are asking them to build. I do not criticise those Liberal Democrat councils for trying to build homes, but if anyone is objectively concreting over the green belt or greenfield land, it is those councils that are choosing to build twice the number of homes that the Conservative Government are asking them to build.
Of course, it was the Liberal Democrat leader who voted consistently for HS2 and, when we were in coalition, voted for every one of this Conservative Government’s planning Bills from 2010 until he lost his seat in 2015, so the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrats were, I am afraid, just embarrassing. Nothing was more emblematic of that than the graphic put out by the Labour party this afternoon, which showed some properties in the Cotswolds that Labour had taken from an article in a newspaper with the headline “Why £10 million country estates are the new £5 million estates”. How out of touch is that? We on  this side of the House do want to build homes. We do want to help young people on to the housing ladder, and we do care about homelessness and rough sleeping, and tackling intergenerational unfairness.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, a great deal united the House in this debate, and six themes emerged, all of which are fortunately the chapters—the pillars—of the planning reform Bill. First is our united desire to see greater environmental protection—our categoric insistence that the green belt must be protected, in a way that the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, who is doing more than any other person in this country to build upon the green belt, does not seem to understand. We will enshrine those principles in the Bill.
Secondly, we will ensure that the Bill means a massive improvement in the quality and design of properties. We will bring forward the ideas of Sir Roger Scruton’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, so that new homes in this country are built to a dramatically higher standard.

John Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Robert Jenrick: I cannot, as I have only a few minutes left, but I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is at the vanguard of this issue.
Thirdly, everyone in this country wants to see more infrastructure built alongside the homes—the GP surgeries, the hospitals, the roads, the parks, the playgrounds. We will bring forward an infrastructure levy that gets more of the land value out of the landowners and the big developers and puts it at the service of local people. That will mean more affordable homes being built in this country than ever before.
We will also ensure that we tip the balance away from the big-volume house builders and towards the small builders, so that local entrepreneurs—the brickies, the plumbers and the builders in our constituencies—get a fair shot at the system.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sarah Owen: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Jenrick: I will not, because I have only a few moments left.
If the Bill were to fail, it is the big-volume house builders who would be celebrating. They would be opening the champagne bottles, and the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) knows that perfectly well. The current system is stacked in favour of the big boys and we are going to change that.
We also want to see more brownfield land built upon, more regeneration, more levelling up and more support for our high streets, which has never been needed more than it is today, and the Bill will deliver that. It will give local authorities more power for compulsory purchase to assemble land and regenerate those important and much-loved spaces in our communities, and at the heart of it is a brownfield-first policy for the whole country.
Lastly, we are going to ensure that there is more engagement and more local democracy, not less. We are going to ensure that the plan-making process is faster and better. We are going to ensure that plans are produced  in 13 months, not seven years, and that millions more of our fellow citizens are involved in the plan-making process than they are today. As we have heard already, only 1% of the public even engage in the current system. We are going to ensure that many, many more people do so. We are going to ensure that neighbourhood plans have more teeth and that more of them happen across the country, not just in the most engaged and well-heeled places. We will ensure that they become ubiquitous and a key part of the planning system. And we are going to end speculative development, which does more than anything to lead to the corrosion of public trust in the planning system.
The benefits of our proposals are clear, and we are going to ensure that people across the House and across the country see and appreciate them in the months to come. Of course we are going to listen, because planning is inherently contentious. It has always been that way, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) said in his important speech, we are not sent here to tackle the easy questions. We are sent here to tackle the hard ones, and some of us—those of us on the Government side of the House, and potentially some in the Labour party—want to work together in the weeks and months to come to ensure that we build the homes this country needs, that we tackle the housing crisis and that we build those homes in a way that we can all be proud of for generations to come.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape local areas and deliver necessary new homes; and therefore calls on the Government to protect the right of communities to object to individual planning applications.

Protecting Britain’s Steel Industry

Emily Thornberry: I beg to move,
That this House believes the British steel industry, and the livelihoods and communities it supports, should not be undermined by unfair competition from overseas; regrets that the Trade Remedies Authority has not accounted for the interconnectedness of the British steel industry, nor the impact of safeguard tariffs being maintained in the US and EU, when recommending the abolition of nine of the 19 existing safeguards on steel products; accordingly requires the Government to take urgent action by legislating to allow Ministers to reject the Trade Remedies Authority’s recommendation and temporarily extend the current safeguards; and orders that, at the sitting on Monday 28 June, Standing Order No. 14(1) shall not apply, and that precedence at that sitting shall be given instead to any Business of the House motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition which may be moved at the commencement of public business that day to make provision for urgent legislative action to protect the vital interests of the British steel industry.
The motion before us disagrees with the recommendations of the Trade Remedies Authority to revoke half the current safeguards protecting our nation’s steel industry against potential floods of cheap imports. It requires the Government to bring forward emergency legislation, allowing them to reject those recommendations and extend all the current safeguards before they expire on 30 June. Finally, it makes provision for the Leader of the Opposition to enable the emergency legislation to be considered next Monday if the Government fail to do so themselves.
It is a pleasure to open this debate. It is a testament to the urgency and importance of the issues before us that so many Members have registered to speak. For that reason, I will not be taking many interventions. I believe that there are 24 Labour Back Benchers alone who want to contribute.
We all recognise that the livelihoods and futures of steel communities across our country will be directly affected by the decisions taken in Westminster this week, but it is the motion before us tonight that creates the possibility that those decisions will be the right ones. That is a heavy responsibility on our shoulders and it is therefore incumbent on us all to treat this debate with the seriousness that it deserves. That is why it is a source of regret that the one person whose decisions will matter above all in Westminster this week—the Secretary of State for International Trade—has chosen not to be here this evening.
After all, it is the Secretary of State’s Trade Remedies Authority—appointed, empowered and inspired by her—that has made the misguided recommendations that have led to this crisis. It is her powers in relation to those recommendations and her freedom to take other issues into account which are the subject of the motion before us today. Most fundamentally of all, it is her general approach to trade policy and her specific attitude towards the future of the steel industry in Britain that is crucial in determining the final decision that is taken on the retention of these safeguards.
If it were me standing in the Secretary of State’s position, I would want to be here this evening to listen to what the representatives of Britain’s steel communities have to say, particularly as some of those representatives are sitting on her own Back Benches. In her absence,  I am going to use my opening remarks to look through each of the three issues I mentioned in turn—first, the role of the Trade Remedies Authority; secondly, the powers of the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, the decisions she now has to take—and try to develop a consensus in this House not just in support of this vital motion, but on how the Secretary of State should approach the crucial days ahead.
Let me start with the role of the Trade Remedies Authority and the reason for its flawed recommendations. There is nothing worse, in life or politics, than people being wise after the event, but in respect of the Trade Remedies Authority it is very much a case of predictions coming to pass. Four years ago, my hon. Friends the Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) warned the Government consistently during the first attempted passage of the Trade Bill that their vision for the new TRA was misguided. Exactly 13 months ago, when the Trade Bill returned for a second time, I stood at this Dispatch Box and followed their previous lead, describing the TRA as
“a vital body with a vital task”
but one that was not representative of the business and workers that it was being set up to defend. “No wonder”, I said 13 months ago,
“there are such concerns and suspicions that the Government’s true agenda for the TRA is not to defend Britain against underpriced imports, but somehow to balance the damage they do to domestic producers against the perceived benefits for domestic consumers.”
I said back then:
“That is not the job of the trade remedies authority.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 616.]
I stand by that statement, even more today now that we have seen this new body in action. If we were in any doubt about the misguided sense of mission that is driving the TRA, we had all the confirmation that we needed last week from the new chair and the new chief executive, who were personally selected by the Secretary of State from the senior ranks of the Department for International Trade. In their joint interview with the Financial Times, they explained that, under their leadership, the TRA would always seek to set the lowest safeguards possible, deliberately lower than any EU equivalent, and that this approach would be quite distinct from countries
“which impose swingeing tariffs to protect particular industries.”
They boasted that the TRA had already scrapped more than 50 of the safeguard tariffs carried over from the European Union, and that they intended to consider only around four cases per year where new safeguards might be required, which is a quarter of the amount being pursued each year by Brussels. They concluded that the TRA was
“suited to a buccaneering global Britain”
that would favour free trade over the protection of domestic industries. If anyone were wondering how the TRA can possibly have come to the conclusions that it has when it comes to maintaining Britain’s steel safeguards, the answer is that the men in charge are simply doing what they were appointed to do by the Secretary of State.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for taking my intervention and for the point that she is making; I agree fully with what she is saying. Does she agree that it is the complete opposite of taking back control that  the Secretary of State cannot even amend the recommendations of this authority and that, basically, it is faceless bureaucrats who are determining Government policy?

Emily Thornberry: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I will be developing that point in a few minutes.

Jacob Young: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Emily Thornberry: I will take one more intervention, especially from the hon. Gentleman whose constituents will want to know what he has to say this evening.

Jacob Young: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. Can she be clear in the point that she is making? Is she questioning the independence of the TRA and would she rather have a politically affiliated body determining trade policy?

Emily Thornberry: I would rather that we had a body that looked after the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and defended the steel industry.
Even so, let us not forget a fundamental flaw at the heart of the TRA’s recommendations: the failure to understand that the safeguards put in place by the EU were deliberately intended to provide comprehensive protection across the steel industry as a whole, recognising that if one product line is exposed to cut-price imports, the competitiveness of the whole industry is immediately undermined. The TRA has either not understood that basic concept or has deliberately chosen to ignore it. Either way, I defy anyone in this House tonight to argue that the TRA’s recommendations must be considered sacrosanct either because of its objectivity or because of its expertise. I am afraid that if Members read the Financial Times interview or studied its conclusions on steel safeguards, it is clear that the TRA has been found sorely lacking on both fronts, as many of us predicted that it would
That brings me to the second of the three major issues before us this evening. If the TRA’s recommendations are flawed, what can the Secretary of State do about it? As the House will be aware, as the legislation stands, it does not allow the Secretary of State to reject the TRA’s recommendations in order to retain the existing state safeguards. The motion before us proposes emergency legislation, allowing the Secretary of State to do exactly that. The reason that we would argue that such an unusual move is a necessity is not just because of the urgent need to stop those steel safeguards expiring at the end of the month, but because this review process has exposed three fundamental problems in the remit of the TRA’s investigation that cannot have been intended by Parliament.
First, it makes no sense whatsoever for the TRA to look at the UK’s safeguards on steel in isolation from what the rest of the world is doing with theirs and from what is happening in global steel markets. Let us consider the position that we are at present: eight of the world’s 10 largest steel markets have safeguards currently in place, with the US and the EU recently confirming that they are certainly keeping theirs. At the same time,  China is heading towards the 1 billion tonne mark for annual production and still has more than 300 million tonnes in spare capacity. In that context, it would be utter madness to remove half our current safeguards and expose our country to a flood of cheap imports from China and elsewhere at exactly the time that those suppliers are desperately hunting for an unprotected market. Yet the TRA has not given any consideration to the international context, because it is apparently not in its remit to do so.
Secondly, it makes no sense whatsoever for the TRA to conduct an economic test on the need for these safeguards that does not take into account the impact of removing them on the 34,000 well-paid, good-quality skilled jobs for steelmakers in Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside, the midlands, the north-east and elsewhere, and the 42,000 more in supply chain roles. These are exactly the kinds of jobs in exactly the kind of communities that the Government keep telling us are essential to level up our country, and yet the direct threat to those jobs and communities that dropping our safeguards would create is not one of the factors considered by the TRA, because it is apparently not in its remit to do so.
Thirdly, it makes no sense whatsoever for the TRA to make recommendations affecting the British steel industry without considering the knock-on implications for our defence procurement programmes, for the construction of critical national infrastructure, and for the delivery of our net zero emission targets. All those major considerations for the Government will be dramatically altered depending on whether we are producing the majority of our steel we need here in Britain or importing it from abroad. Yet the potential impacts of its recommendations on those different areas were not among the factors considered by the TRA, because apparently it was not in its remit to do so.
That leaves us with a fundamental dilemma: either the TRA’s remit needs to change so that it can consider the global context for its recommendations and take into account their impact on our jobs, communities and regions, our national defence, our civil infrastructure and our climate change objectives, or, alternatively, the Secretary of State’s powers need to change to allow her to weigh up all those factors against the TRA’s analysis and make a decision, with Parliament’s approval, based on our overall national interest, on what is best for Britain. Which of those two options would be better is a discussion for another day, but one thing that we should be certain of now is that the Government cannot proceed with a decision on steel safeguards on the basis of recommendations by the TRA that have not even taken into account some of the most crucial factors at the heart of that decision. On that basis alone, I hope that Members in all parts of this House will agree on the need for emergency legislation to allow the Secretary of State to reject the TRA’s recommendations, extend the current safeguards beyond 30 June, and allow time for discussion about the right course of action for the future.
I said at the outset that the third and most fundamental issue affecting our debate today is the approach of the Secretary of State herself to the future of the British steel industry and whether she will accept our invitation to move emergency legislation, if that is how we vote tonight. If you had asked me that question seven years ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have said yes. Back then, you may remember, the Secretary of State  burst on to the political scene with an impassioned cry for us to buy more pears, apples and cheese grown and made here in Britain, and scathing criticism of those who thought that our food production could be outsourced overseas instead. But now she reserves her fury for the British farming industry and all of us in this House who oppose the deal that she has signed to flood our market and undercut our farmers with cheap and cruelly produced Australian meat.
In the past seven years, the Secretary of State has seemingly been fully captured by the free trade dogma that insists on the right of the consumer to choose the cheapest product available from anywhere in the world and rails against any interference with that right, whether it is the maintenance of tariff safeguards to protect domestic producers, concerns about slave labour and human rights abuses, or the cruelty to animals and carbon admissions that are so often the hidden cost of cheap imports. Because the Secretary of State will have no truck with such concerns, she has become the hero of the right-wing free trade think-tanks—the ones that hanker after the supposed improvements in productivity and efficiency if only our NHS was forced to compete, the ones that openly talk about the benefits of destroying the British farming industry so as to end subsidies for wildlife conservation and free up more land for developers, and the ones that inevitably are equally scathing about Government support for the British steel industry or the retention of our safeguard tariffs.
Listen to Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, who said:
“It’s unsustainable for the government to prop up a steel industry which is no longer competitive internationally.”
Listen to Matthew Kilcoyne, deputy director of the Adam Smith Institute, who described Government funding for the steel industry as
“throwing…cash into a burning furnace”.
These are not some obscure figures on the fringes of public life or some right-wing rent-a-quotes trying to get their names into The Telegraph. These are hand-picked members of the Secretary of State’s own strategic trade advisory group—her personal body of external advisers, whose sole representative from manufacturing industry is not from British Steel or Make UK, but is the director of JCB construction, and guess what? He is the biggest Tory party donor.
These are the voices the Secretary of State is listening to when it comes to safeguarding tariffs, when it comes to protecting British farming and when it comes to protecting British Steel. So no wonder the two acolytes she appointed to run the Trade Remedies Authority think their job is to promote free trade rather than to defend domestic producers, and have recommended this wrong-headed decision on steel as a result, and no wonder the Secretary of State, who said last month that she would do “whatever is necessary” to protect the UK steel industry, will not even attend this debate to discuss how she might go about doing that. If she refuses to act to protect our safeguard tariffs, it will be an unconscionable betrayal of Britain’s steel communities—one that they will never forget and one they will never forgive. What will make it all the worse is that she, her think-tank allies and the Trade Remedies Authority are just plain wrong when it comes to the British steel industry. Opposition Members see a bright future for our steel communities,   a green future and a future that creates wealth for our country and well-paid, good-quality jobs in our regions if we have the will to make that future happen.

Jacob Young: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Emily Thornberry: No, I will not give way at this stage. I am going to finish the speech.
If we do wish to do so in Britain, we can wean ourselves entirely away from the cheap imported steel that causes 50% extra carbon emissions, and instead have a British steel industry that leads the world in the development of hydrogen steel technology and decarbonised steel production, and by doing so leads our country to the achievement of net zero. If we choose to do so in Britain, we can put home-produced steel at the heart of every defence contract and infrastructure project from warships to wind farms, and use British steel to build our way back to full economic recovery. If we choose to do so in Britain, we can make the jobs in our steel industry the foundation for creating thousands more well-paid, good-quality, skilled jobs in other communities that need them, as we apply our skills and strengths in steelmaking to the new opportunities created by the green industrial revolution.
However, to make all those things happen, there is something the Government must contribute. It is just as precious as public funding, but so much easier to provide, and that is a simple injection of certainty and stability. When our steel companies go into the world and seek investment in their future, they must be able to say with total confidence that the British Government have their back, will support them when necessary and will always do whatever it takes to defend them against unfair trade or a surge in cheap imports. That type of certainty and confidence is the minimum that our steel industry has the right to expect from their Government, and if it cannot get that from them, Parliament must seek to provide it instead.
That is the fundamental choice before us all tonight, but especially Conservative Members who may be debating with their conscience which way to vote. Will they side with the communities of Scunthorpe, Cardiff and Sheffield, who see a bright future for their industry, or will they side with the fanatics from the right-wing think tanks who see no future at all? Will they provide our steel industry with the safeguards that it needs to build for the future with confidence, or will they leave it to sink or swim in a flood of cheap imports from China?
I have no idea where the Secretary of State stands on that choice, because she has chosen not even to be here this evening, and has so far refused to take the emergency action that the Opposition have instead been forced to propose on her behalf. But if this House decides overwhelmingly to back the Opposition motion tonight and require the Secretary of State to maintain the safeguards, I believe that by sheer weight of pressure we can force her hand to do so, inject confidence back into our steel industry and forge a path for our steel communities to the brighter future that awaits them.

Ranil Jayawardena: New roads, track renewals, flood defences, Hinkley Point—the Government are unleashing the potential of our whole  country by backing British industry and boosting Britain’s infrastructure. Steel first came to the fore as Britain led the global industrial revolution, and it is today’s infrastructure revolution, underpinned by 7 million tons of steel in the next 10 years here alone, that will see Britain lead the world into the future. Steel remains one of the pillars of British industry and one of the commanding heights of the economy to this people’s Government, and we are committed to championing free and fair trade to the benefit of jobs in every corner of our country.
The Conservatives are moving our great country on, instead of going backwards with the Labour party. We have secured trade agreements with 68 countries around the world, plus the EU, covering trade worth £744 billion last year, and we are just getting started. We are negotiating an agreement with New Zealand, we are working to join the trans-Pacific partnership and we have announced our intent to begin negotiations with India, too. This will put Britain at the heart of a new, dynamic, global trading network, as a hub for investment and exports, securing prosperity for British families and generations to come. That is important because we know that our job is to serve the British people, whether they drive a white van or a hatchback car, and whatever flag they fly from their home.
We fully agree that our steel producers and the livelihoods that they support in every part of our kingdom should be protected from unfair competition. More than that, we want them to be able to export to friends around the world.

Lee Anderson: Under the last Labour Government, steel production in this country fell by almost 50% to its lowest level since 1934. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should look at its own record in office rather than criticising this Government?

Ranil Jayawardena: I completely agree. Indeed, not only is my hon. Friend right, but the numbers get worse for Labour: in Labour’s last five years in charge, industrial electricity prices rose by two thirds, hitting the steel industry hard. In contrast, we have provided £500 million in relief to the steel industry since 2013 to help it to cope with high electricity costs. We have also fought hard to make sure that the industry does not have to face duties of 25% when we export to the European Union.
We are alert to concerns that China is artificially promoting state-subsidised steel. We can see the impact of such trade-distorting practices today, with the steel market 40% over capacity. The facts show that as we have stepped up to take action, the Labour party has been shuffling its feet. Despite the rhetoric today, in her very first appearance at the Dispatch Box in that role, the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make it clear to the United States that she would not agree a deal with our American friends that would constrain Britain’s ability to negotiate a deal with China. The right hon. Lady was willing to put a deal with China ahead of the deal with the United States.
Whether the Labour party has changed its policy on China or not, this people’s Government have no plans to do a trade deal with China. On the contrary, we have  used our presidency of the G7 to rally an alliance of democracies in a battle for the soul of global trade. To win that battle, we want better and more modern rules at the World Trade Organisation, as well as new rules on industrial subsidies. That is why we are working under the G7 trade track, an initiative pioneered by Britain to set the agenda for WTO reform. This will be a tough fight, but it is a fight we must win. People cannot believe in free trade unless it is fair. That is why we need effective rules and tools.
Trade remedies are an important tool in our tool box, and it is right that Britain stands up for her key industries. It is right to have a robust framework in place, and we do. We said that we would get Brexit done and then move on to people’s priorities. We got Brexit done. We got a trade deal with the EU, and now we have transitioned 19 measures from the EU, plus the steel safeguard. Now that we have full control of our trade policy, we can go further to defend British industry and jobs, and take further action where necessary.

Jim Shannon: The Minister is painting a very positive picture. Has any consideration been given to ensuring that every Government contract is carried out using only British-based steel? Not only would that secure local jobs for local people, but I believe it would send a message that has been lost in our search for a good deal.

Ranil Jayawardena: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must champion British steel at every turn. Indeed, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been creating a strong pipeline to ensure that advance notice has been given to industry about the 7 million tonnes of steel that will be required, so that industry can seek the opportunities that lie ahead. The safeguard measures that Labour Members talk about today are only part of the picture with trade remedies. Dare I say that it is not the first time the Labour party has not quite understood international trade?
We must remember that safeguard measures are not intended to address unfair practices, which are the subject of the motion. They are emergency measures intended to tackle unforeseen surges in imports, and they are governed by strict WTO rules. It has been the job of the independent Trade Remedies Authority to investigate whether the steel safeguard measures should be extended, amended or revoked. That independent organisation has followed the evidence, and engaged widely with importers, domestic producers and overseas exporters. Although on Twitter the shadow Business Secretary seemingly does not know the difference between independence and being part of Government, the TRA is independent. This is not the Government’s proposal, and for each commodity covered by the safeguard measures, the TRA has considered whether there is domestic production, whether there is evidence that a surge in imports has caused or threatens to cause serious harm, and whether it is in British economic interests to maintain the measure.

Richard Fuller: The shadow Secretary of State stated that she was shocked that the TRA had not considered what the impact would be if the restrictions were removed. Under schedule 49(4)(a) of the Trade Remedies (Increase in Imports Causing Serious Injury to UK Producers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019,  that is precisely what it must consider in its analysis. Does the Minister agree that the right hon. Lady does not know what she is talking about?

Ranil Jayawardena: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the lack of attention to detail on the Labour Benches. The approach we have taken forward is in line not only with WTO rules but with our domestic legislation.
I will tell you the truth, Madam Deputy Speaker: the TRA has recommended to the Secretary of State that nine product categories of the existing safeguard measure be removed. It judged that seven of them did not meet the requirement to show a significant increase in imports. Another failed to show any risk of serious injury or injury recurring, and the other did not pass the economic interest test, with industry asking for it to be removed, as the shadow Secretary of State discovered this morning, courtesy of the “Today” programme on BBC Radio 4. The Labour party seems intent on throwing the baby out with the bath water. The TRA recommended retaining the safeguard on 10 other product categories, and that would be exposed to legal challenge if we were arbitrarily to take the sort of decision that the Labour party advocates. Does the Labour party want to leave the WTO and adopt an isolationist approach in the world? I don’t, and I won’t.

Emily Thornberry: Will the Minister give way?

Ranil Jayawardena: No.
In truth there is a choice between working hard, getting into the detail and defending British interests, which we are doing and will continue to do, and playing politics, as Labour Members and those on the left of our politics seem intent on doing.
It is worth remembering that the TRA was set up in 2018 under the last Government and places strict limits on the powers of the Secretary of State. Of course, the Labour party knows this, because Labour tried to curtail the Secretary of State’s powers even further. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, spoke against
“the public interest...being used as a mechanism to widen the powers of the Secretary of State.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2018; c. 103.]
During the passage of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, Labour stood against the Secretary of State being able to reject a recommendation of the TRA, but today Labour is asking us to legislate to do just that: to reject the TRA’s recommendation.
Under the legislation from the last Parliament—that dead Parliament—the Secretary of State does not have the power to change the TRA’s recommendation—

Emily Thornberry: Will the Minister give way?

Ranil Jayawardena: No, the right hon. Lady has had her say.
The Secretary of State does not have the power under the law to change the TRA’s recommendation on the safeguard measure to retain measures against its advice. She possesses only a downward ratchet, which means either accepting the TRA’s recommendation in its entirety or rejecting it and seeing every part of the safeguard measure expire on 30 June. I can assure the House that  the Secretary of State takes these responsibilities very seriously and will reach a decision on the recommendation and publish it before the measure is due to expire.

Emily Thornberry: Will the Minister give way?

Ranil Jayawardena: I will.

Emily Thornberry: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he in favour of these recommendations? Does he think they are a good idea or not?

Ranil Jayawardena: I will come to the Secretary of State’s position and the process that will follow in a moment, but I must be clear—

Emily Thornberry: That is not what I asked.

Ranil Jayawardena: The right hon. Lady did not answer the earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) either.
Extending the deadline for a decision is not an option, and extension of the safeguard on product categories would expose Britain to challenge from other member countries of the WTO for non-compliance with the agreement on safeguards, which, as I warned a moment ago, may lead to a WTO decision requiring the United Kingdom to revoke the measure in its entirety.
I thought the Labour party understood these principles. After all, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the then shadow Trade Minister, criticised President Trump for imposing
“protectionist tariffs that the rest of the world believes are illegal under WTO rules.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 39.]
Maybe that was Labour’s policy then and this is its policy now. Perhaps the Opposition were against the policies of President Trump then and support the policies of President Trump today. Either way, they do not have the British national interest at heart. The Labour party is showing once again that it is a protest party, lacking in competence and understanding of the issues. Labour may have changed its leader, but it poses a clear risk to our country.
Turning to our friends in Europe and America, we continue to have discussions with the steel sector to understand its concerns about the outcome of the EU’s steel safeguard review. We recognise the harm caused by the unfair and unjustified US tariffs levied on our steel industry under section 232. It is fake news to suggest that our steel industry threatens the viability of American steel producers or that it contributes to global excess capacity in the market. Trade barriers such as these are what bring the rules-based international trading system to its knees, yet that is the sort of approach that the Labour party is advocating tonight. We remain disappointed at the continued imposition of such tariffs and are pressing our American counterparts for an urgent and permanent resolution. After working to date to de-escalate the Boeing-Airbus dispute by agreeing to suspend retaliatory tariffs for five years, we now want to shift their attention to the unjustified section 232 tariffs and work with them to agree a fair, permanent resolution for British industry.
We will continue to deliver for the British people, and that is why we are reviewing the Secretary of State’s powers already, exploring and consulting on how we might legitimately be able to strengthen them. That is why we are working closely with the Department for  Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that trade remedies measures are up to date in the current context, not least following the pandemic. In the event of there being increased imports of unfairly subsidised products into the United Kingdom, we will not hesitate to take action to defend the industry using anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariffs. That shows our resolve to improve our domestic toolkit and to use the tools at our disposal to tackle market-distorting practices, but rushing through changes to legislation, posing a risk to industry in the process, as Labour would have us do, is not the answer.

Emily Thornberry: Will the Minister give way?

Ranil Jayawardena: No. We should all greatly value Britain’s reputation as a champion of global free and fair trade. We should not want to take actions that risk being found to be non-compliant at the WTO. The Secretary of State takes her responsibilities very seriously in considering the recommendation from the TRA, but the truth is that the best way forward, the right way forward, for our steel producers lies in free and fair trade. Together, we can make sure that this vital British industry enjoys a sustainable long-term future. The British people should be in no doubt: this people’s Government are backing our steel manufacturers; this people’s Government are backing the tens of thousands of jobs in the industry; and this people’s Government will continue to do so.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, I remind colleagues that there is a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. If colleagues take less than three minutes, more people will get in—at the moment, not everyone will get in. I should also say that if colleagues choose to take interventions, I would be grateful if they still stuck to three minutes. Thank you. I call Marion Fellows, for the SNP.

Marion Fellows: I was eager to take part in this debate, as steel is a subject close to my heart. I have a steel plant in my constituency: Dalzell Steelworks in Motherwell, which was saved by the Scottish Government in 2016 when it was sold on by Tata Steel. At that time, I was a member of two steel taskforces, one organised and led by the UK Conservative Government, and the second by the SNP Scottish Government. The UK steel taskforce talked a lot about the importance of steel and what it would like to do to help the industry. Despite that, Redcar steelworks and other locations closed, and approximately 20,000 steel jobs have been lost over the years.
We were told it was the fault of the EU, and there was nothing we could do about the high cost of energy or to stop the imports of cheap steel that were so dangerous to our industry in the UK. Well, here we are in 2021, and what has happened? A recent report from UK Steel shows the significant electricity price disparity the UK steel sector still faces compared with its European counterparts, paying an extra £54 million in energy costs compared with German steelmakers. Over the past five years, the price disparity has cost the sector £254 million, or 130% of annual capital investment.
The report, “Closing the Gap”, shows the huge structural barrier facing the UK steel sector as it faces the core challenges of adapting to a trading environment outside the EU and trying to recover in the aftermath of the pandemic, and embarks on the major challenge of decarbonisation. The report makes a powerful argument for the UK Government to put forward a bold programme of support for the sector, to level the playing field. Consistently higher UK electricity prices increase production costs, reduce available capital and deter inward investment, severely reducing the sector’s ability to invest. Gareth Stace, UK Steel’s director, said:
“Our new report plainly demonstrates UK steelmakers face systemic disadvantages in higher electricity prices than our competitors… Electricity is one of the biggest costs for the steel industry, it undermines our competitiveness and it damages our ability to invest… And the issue is becoming even more urgent with the growing need to rapidly decarbonise”.
UK Steel says the UK Government need to be “bold and decisive”. It would be hard to describe this Government as such in relation to steel.
Scotland did not vote for Brexit, yet the Tories are using it to remove vital protections from our steel industry. At the end of last year, the UK transitioned the EU’s steel safeguards, retaining vital protection against trade diversion and import surges for 19 steel products produced in the UK. Over the course of the past six months, as we have heard, the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate has been reviewing the measures to see whether they should be extended. Now, the preliminary decision by the Department for International Trade is to remove a large number of products from so-called import safeguards designed to protect domestic producers from a flood of cheap imports. According to UK steel, this needs to be urgently rethought. Under Tory plans, the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate —an arm’s length body of the Department for International Trade—recommended extending the measures on 10 categories of imports for three years from next month and suggested that measures on nine categories be revoked. The British steel industry has hit out at these plans—these are the folk who make steel, Minister—describing them as a “hammer blow” that risks damaging the sector long term. It said:
“The UK will become a magnet for huge volumes of steel imports, it is beyond worrying to consider the damage this could do to the UK steel sector and its long-term viability”.
Alasdair McDiarmid, operations director of the steelworkers’ union Community said:
“This is the first test of the government’s commitment to our steel industry post-Brexit and they’re failing it”.
UK Steel said that the removal of protections will have an adverse impact on the manufacture of steel sections across the country. It added that the measures were designed to protect the
“viability of an entire industry, not individual production lines”.

Jonathan Edwards: Once again, the hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech in defence of the steel industry. The key point seems to be that the US and the EU are maintaining their safeguards. We know that there is a massive oversupply of steel being produced around the world; I think the figure in 2019 was 514 million tonnes. If the British state removes our safeguards, it does not take a brain surgeon to work out where some of that steel is going to be arriving.

Marion Fellows: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He actually did the next part of my speech, so I can move on and let more Back Benchers in.
It is quite hard to talk about global Britain when a UK foundation industry, such as steel, is being put to the wall by a Government who seem not only not to understand manufacturing but to think that it is okay to allow a foundation industry to try to compete with both hands tied behind its back. The UK Government said that they wanted to “take back control” from bureaucrats, but they are allowing the TRA, an unelected body, to make shattering decisions on the steel sector. This is a Government just like Thatcher’s Government, who closed Ravenscraig in my constituency. The UK Government have the power to protect steel jobs, but they are actively undermining steelworkers and the steel sector and risking jobs. Boris Johnson is finishing off Thatcher’s mission to destroy Scotland and the rest—

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Lady should not really refer to the Prime Minister by name; she should say “Prime Minister”.

Marion Fellows: I am sorry—the Prime Minister is finishing off Thatcher’s mission to destroy Scotland and the rest of the UK’s industrial base.
Contrast that with what the Scottish National party Scottish Government have done for steel in Scotland. The Scottish steel taskforce was set up at the same time as the UK taskforce, or a few months later, to save the Dalzell works and the Clydebridge plant. From day one, the focus was on making these plants productive again. The Lanarkshire steelworks had closed in 2015 and the Fort William smelter was poised to close before the Scottish Government interventions in 2016. The Scottish Government helped Liberty Steel to reopen Dalzell, and direct job numbers have recovered. In Lochaber, 165 direct jobs have been saved—not many, but in Lochaber, that is a huge number of jobs—and 44 new jobs were created by the GFG Alliance.
The Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise supported Liberty’s acquisition of Dalzell and Clydebridge steelworks. Scottish Enterprise provided support through a £7 million commercial loan to Liberty Steel and the business has successfully re-entered the heavy steel plate market. Scottish Enterprise recognises the challenging environment for businesses in Scotland right now and the significant economic benefit that Liberty Steel brings in terms of jobs, the supply chain and the future safeguarding of Scotland’s steel industry. Scottish Enterprise is in discussion with Liberty Steel on repayment of the loan funding, and, of course, debt forbearance is not uncommon in the current market.
The GFG Alliance has said that its Scottish businesses are performing strongly and have access to sufficient resources for their current needs. There has been no call on the Government guarantee and the Government receive a fee from the business for providing the guarantee, and the guarantee is backed by security over its assets. In Scotland, there is political will to support the steel industry. Where is that will in the UK Government? It appears that this UK Government are happy to give a hand to their cronies, but are willing to allow steel, a foundation industry, to founder under unfair competition and high energy prices. There is a reluctance to help an industry that provides decent, well-paid jobs and  that could supply steel for the green energy industry and infrastructure for recovery after this coronavirus pandemic.
Finally, will the Minister be added to the list of his predecessors who talked a good game, but refused to actually help the steel sector? Minister, we are waiting.

Peter Aldous: I will take the few short minutes available to me to highlight the need to promote the production of clean steel, which can play a key role in the covid recovery, levelling up and decarbonisation. With COP26 rapidly coming into view on the horizon, there is an opportunity for the UK to be a global leader in this sector.
In the next few years, there will be an enormous increase in the demand for steel, and that is already manifesting itself in significant price increases. In East Anglia and off our coast, steel will be required for the largest array of offshore wind farms in the world, for the building of the Sizewell C nuclear power station and the cabling required for renewing and extending our grid.
However, we must not ignore the environmental impact of steel production, as the industry contributes up to 7% of the world’s CO2 emissions. The rapid emergence of hydrogen, which has quickly evolved from the new kid on the block to the energy sector’s Swiss army penknife, provides the UK with the USP for promoting clean steel, whether from carbon capture, offshore wind or nuclear power. The volume of hydrogen needed for steel production is of reasonable proportions to match either blue hydrogen or green hydrogen.
East Anglia, as you are well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not an established centre for the steel industry, but we are uniquely placed to play a major role in the changing face of domestic steel production due to ready access to low-carbon energy sources, whether offshore wind through carbon capture for the existing gas infrastructure focused on Bacton, or Sizewell C. It is also important that in the supply chain we promote and develop fabrication hubs in places such as Lowestoft, where skills and expertise have been built up in shipbuilding and the oil and gas industry for well over a century.
The Government are laying the foundations for a world-leading clean steel industry with the 10-point plan, the industrial decarbonisation strategy and the industrial fuel switching competition. It is vital that they now build on that work, announce the findings of the call for evidence for the clean steel fund and bring forward the following policy initiatives: first, a border carbon adjustment on imported goods based on their carbon content; secondly, the setting of clear targets for the use of clean steel by specific dates in infrastructure projects; and, finally, the promotion of a clean steel demonstrator project. It is also important that the forthcoming hydrogen strategy provides the framework for the industry to develop in East Anglia.

Darren Jones: The heart of the issue that we are debating today is the Government’s power, or willingness, to intervene in the national interest. The Conservative party told the public that voting for Brexit would mean that we took back control. Instead, since Brexit, the Conservatives have scrapped the industrial strategy, failed to secure a slot in the Queen’s Speech to  reform state aid, failed to improve public procurement rules and boxed themselves into a corner by failing to reform the rules of the Trade Remedies Authority, as we have heard this evening. These issues are now putting jobs in the steel industry at risk, as the steel industry tells us, at a time when the sector is once again in peril as it swings from steel crisis to steel crisis.
The long-running pressures on UK steel are well known—high energy prices, high business rates and global competition from countries that undercut the price of British steel—but the importance of the steel sector to the UK is also well known, from protecting highly-skilled, well-paid jobs in communities that rely on the industry, to being able to buy domestic sources of steel, which need to be low-carbon.
The Government, however, have failed to do anything helpful on these issues. In fact, they have made things worse by publishing an industrial decarbonisation strategy that once again does not have sufficient buy-in from the Chancellor to help businesses to make the changes they need. Now, to make things even worse, the Minister tells us that the Government cannot do anything to stop the Trade Remedies Authority scrapping tariff safeguards, at a time when we all know that huge gluts of cheap steel are waiting to be exported from countries such as China.
I am going to be unusually generous to the Government, because I believe the Minister knows he is in trouble, which is why he barely touched on this motion in his speech. I think the Business Secretary knows all of this and he wants to do something about it, but, much like when Downing Street mounted a coup and took industrial policy from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Business Secretary and the Ministers here seem not to have the authority or power to act. That is why repeatedly the Business Secretary has said that it is the International Trade Secretary’s responsibility to sort this out. I note that neither of them is here this evening.
In a letter to me, the International Trade Secretary said, “We will not hesitate to defend UK industry and we will be working across government to ensure the UK can defend its vital interests.” It is the Government’s lucky day, because our motion gives them that opportunity to bring forward the emergency legislation they need to reject the TRA’s recommendations and to temporarily extend the tariff safeguards until fuller reforms can be brought before the House. So this is a real test for the Government, given everything the Conservative party has told us about Brexit, levelling up and protecting British industry. The Government have the power to intervene—the question is whether the Conservative party will do so.

Nicola Richards: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak up for our fantastic steel industry in West Bromwich East and the wider country. Steel has always been very important to the Black Country. The industrial revolution brought with it huge technological changes that the Black Country capitalised on, allowing cast-iron and steel to be produced at a cheaper price than wrought iron. Steel is part of our identity, and the communities that grew around West  Bromwich, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley were home to the families that drove the furnaces day and night—"Black by day, red by night”, as the saying goes. We are proud of our industrial heritage in my part of the Black Country. Indeed, steel, iron and industry are what our regional flag is all about, and I know that the people of the Black Country are incredibly proud of that.
As we know, this debate is about not just the economic benefits of producing steel, but the future of the industry and the many thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on its success. That is why I was in many ways surprised to see this as a subject of an Opposition day debate, given the strong commitments this Government have made to the steel industry. Interestingly, employment in the UK steel industry was cut by more than a half under Labour. The Office for National Statistics says that jobs in the steel industry fell by more than half between 1997 and 2010. By stark contrast, the proportion of steel procured within the UK nearly doubled in 2020 compared with the year before, with 77% of steel used in public projects now being procured from the UK. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the plans to ensure that our domestic steel industry is at the heart of the Government’s plans to build back better after the pandemic.
I am also impressed by the launching of the steel procurement taskforce, helping the industry to compete for public contracts. Meeting regularly over the coming year, the taskforce aims to explore what the Government and industry can do to address challenges that the sector is facing in competing for and securing public contracts. That is a common-sense approach. It would however, be remiss of me not to mention the situation with Liberty Steel, which has been an incredibly worrying episode for many of my constituents and their families.
I have already spoken about this situation, but I really hope for a positive resolution to it soon and call again for the protection of jobs in West Bromwich. I have spoken to the Business Secretary about this directly on many occasions and want once again to place on record my personal thanks to him for his regular engagement and his commitment to the industry. Re-establishing the UK Steel Council and creating the £250 million clean steel fund to help the sector adapt to new challenges, such as decarbonisation, is absolutely the right way forward. Later this year, the Prime Minister will be looking to secure firmer climate target agreements when he hosts the COP26 summit in Glasgow, so I implore the Government to engage with industry leaders and stakeholders ahead of the summit to bring the entire steel industry with us on this decarbonisation drive.

Christina Rees: I support the motion to bring forward emergency legislation to give Ministers powers to reject the TRA’s recommendations and temporarily extend all 19 steel safeguards so that they do not expire at the end of June, and allow time to find a long-term solution to protect the British steel industry.
The steel industry is vital to our economy and the idea that it does not have a future is unthinkable. Our steelworkers are as robust as the steel they produce. They have bounced back from every adversity they have  encountered, but the situation is about to get much worse as the industry faces a potentially catastrophic existential threat. Under current legislation, the Secretary of State can accept the TRA recommendations and we lose nine safeguards, or reject them and we lose all 19. That is so wrong. Dropping nine safeguards will open up our market to thousands of tonnes of cheap steel imports with no defences to stop it. That will have dire consequences for every steelworks because of the interconnectedness of the industry.
Steel is at the centre of everything we build. Railways, schools and hospitals all need high-quality British steel, as do the aerospace, agriculture, automotive, defence and construction supply chains, too. The British steel industry produces 7 million tonnes of crude steel every year, 70% of the UK’s annual requirement of which 96% is recycled again and again, and it makes a £2.1 billion direct contribution to UK GDP. Some 33,700 people are directly employed, with an average annual salary of £34,299, and 42,000 people work in the supply chain. Steel is vital for building green technologies of the future, such as wind turbines, and steel is helping the UK to achieve net zero by going through its own decarbonisation process.
The global oversupply of steel, plus unfair trading practices from China, have added to problems facing UK steel producers. The UK Government have not supported the industry during the pandemic, despite demand for steel dropping by 16% in 2020: no emergency support, no support in the last Budget, not mentioned in the plan for growth, not procuring British steel, and holding back funds from the clean steel fund until 2023. It is astounding that the UK Government would provide open access to our steel market. The UK Government need to stop pretending that there is nothing they can do, and support our motion to legislate to keep all 19 safeguards and stand up for steel.

Jamie Wallis: This debate is very important to my constituents. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), as both her constituency and mine border Aberavon, where the Port Talbot steelworks are located. There is a huge amount of employment in Bridgend dependent on those steelworks, either directly or indirectly.
I agree with those who say that the Government should do all they can to support the steel industry. It is also true that the industry has faced a multitude of challenges that predate covid. In fact, some are more historical than that. I encourage Opposition Members to look at what happened to the industry between 1997 and 2010, when the production of steel in this country halved and we went from approximately 70,000 people working in the industry in 1997 to just over 30,000 in 2010, a fall of 56%.
The Opposition are correct that overseas steel has had a negative impact on the British steel industry and that our British industries should not be undermined by unfair competition from overseas, especially by the dumping of steel often reported to have come from China, but their proposals to simply reject the TRA’s recommendations would result in all the current safeguards being revoked. It would breach World Trade Organisation rules and open the UK up to legal retaliation from  other members. Not only is that counterintuitive, but it is quite the opposite of championing our British industries and reviving the UK steel industry.
There is a need to revolutionise the steel industry in the UK towards the economy of the future. Decarbonisation is clearly key to that. Through the clean steel fund, provided by the UK Government, the industry will adapt to the challenges of decarbonisation while continuing to manufacture world-renowned steel. However, adapting to the future green economy brings with it new challenges as well. For example, electric arc furnaces reduce carbon emissions, but there is a huge concern locally in my constituency about the impact on local jobs of moving to that technology. Although we must work to forge a greener industry, we must also continue to support the steelworkers.
The ways to support the British steel industry are multifarious and there is clearly no one solution to restoring the industry to its former glory, but I strongly feel that one important way of building back better is to champion our industries, especially British steel, when it comes to procurement. The £640 billion levelling-up infrastructure campaign will require millions of tonnes of top-quality steel. We simply must procure that right here in the UK, so that investment in British infrastructure also means investment in British jobs.

Barry Gardiner: One of the reasons that I spent so many hours in Committee opposing the Trade Bill in the previous Parliament was to avoid precisely the sort of nonsense that we are discussing today. The recommendation by the TRA to remove safeguards on nine out of 19 product categories takes us back five years to the crisis that we experienced in 2016. It will leave half of steel products exposed to a flood of imports. We know this because prior to the introduction of the current steel safeguards, UK imports of steel increased by 25% between 2013 and 2017, severely undermining our own industry.
The Government failed to ensure that the TRA would protect and defend British producers. They engineered the membership of the body such that not only does the Secretary of State maintain full control of who is appointed and what its remit will be, but no voice can even be raised to temper the Government’s dogmatic fixation on what their own warped vision of free trade happens to be.
Labour tabled a series of amendments to ensure a level playing field for British industry. The Government voted down every single one of those amendments—and now where are we? We are left with a whole industry that is rightly angry and confused: confused as to why trade unions and employers were not consulted at any stage in respect of the TRA recommendations; confused as to why the TRA has shown such a lack of understanding about the interconnectedness of the industry, as assessment of product categories separately cannot provide an accurate picture of the threat of an increase in imports, nor the damage that it would cause; confused as to why out-of-date data was used that does not include volumes of smaller imports, where there was an increase in 17 of the 19 product categories that the TRA has simply not accounted for; and confused as to why, at a time when the EU and US are maintaining their safeguards, we are stripping ours away.
This decision will leave our market open to import surges just as the sector recovers from covid-19, and at a time when our exports to the EU and US will still be subject to tariffs and quotas. It is reported that the EU and the US are in bilateral negotiations to end tariffs on steel products with a deadline of the end of the year. So, well done to the Secretary of State—it looks as if she has engineered a situation where our steel exporters will not only be undermined in their own domestic market by cheap subsidised steel from China and the far east; they will also face a 25% tariff to enter the US, just as their EU competitors will face no barriers at all. The incompetence is staggering.
The sector employs 33,000 people. It is a sector that communities and towns are built around. It is a sector that is highly innovative and has continually bounced back from crisis after crisis—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. We must move on because I need to get as many people in as possible.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I am aware that many learned colleagues wish to speak this evening, so I will get straight to the point and will keep my remarks specific to the TRA safeguards issue.
As colleagues will know, my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary will decide whether to accept the Trade Remedies Authority’s recommendations on steel safeguards. Its recommendations are to remove safeguard protections for almost half of UK steel product categories. As it stands, if she does not accept that recommendation, all safeguard protections will expire by the end of this month, and I accept that her hands are somewhat tied in that regard.
I have put on record my opposition to the TRA’s preliminary recommendations in pretty frank terms, and many colleagues have spoken about the issue in Parliament, fed their views back to the TRA and raised the issue with the Department for International Trade. Despite this extensive feedback, a week later the TRA’s final recommendations still overlooked many of the arguments that were made on both sides of the House—namely, that it did not make a sufficiently industry-led assessment, that it did not use International Steel Statistics Bureau data but used data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs instead, and that it did not sufficiently consider the impact of recent events on the UK steel industry. Reading the final recommendations, it is clear that the TRA is to some degree a hostage of the rigid terms set out in the trade remedies regulations. It is not forward-looking in its assessments and, regrettably, some decisions were made despite the data being insufficient.
I am sure that many across the House will agree that decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of our constituents cannot be made in that way, and that we now need further proactive solutions to support the steel industry. We must look at whether reform of the Trade Secretary’s powers is required to allow safeguard assessments to be conducted in part by Ministers, who have an understanding of the bigger picture, who are in  a position to make decisions about the trade-offs and who are accountable for their decision making. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his commitment to this issue and for agreeing to meet me. That will be a welcome discussion, and I urge the Government to explore how we can make World Trade Organisation-compliant changes in legislation to allow the Trade Secretary the option to take back control and consider whether it is legally possible to extend our existing safeguards. Speaking plainly, it is clear to me that when the EU is set to keep all 19 of its steel safeguards and we are set to keep only 10, that risks putting us at a disadvantage.
I was born in Scunthorpe, and I was there in 2018 and 2019 when the steelworks were at huge risk. I saw at first hand how much effort and funding the Conservative Government put in place to support jobs, and my words tonight are not a comment on the Government’s previous support for steel; they are a comment on the TRA’s recommendations and on how we react to them. They are a plain ask of the Government to help the steel industry again, because I believe that their instinct is to support the steel industry. No one in this country can go a single day without steel. It is a special case: it is a foundation industry and it affects my constituents, and I will work with right hon. and hon. Members from across the House to fight for the interests of steelworkers in Scunthorpe.

Stephen Doughty: It is refreshing to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). She has a choice tonight. She can vote for this motion, which would provide the ability to take action to introduce emergency legislation, and stand up for her constituents in Scunthorpe. It has been sad to hear some other Members who seemed to be falling in line with their Whips.
The House will be aware of the Celsa steelworks in my constituency, and I pay tribute to the management and all the workers there and to the trade union Community across south Wales. GMB and Unite do so much to stand up for steelworkers, and I declare my interest in relation to the GMB. I also pay tribute to UK Steel. I must also acknowledge the sensible co-operation between the UK Government and the Welsh Government in support of the steelworks in my constituency during this past difficult year, and that is why it was so disappointing to hear such a weak, vacuous and petty speech from the Minister, whom I like personally. His speech will have disappointed steelworkers and steel communities up and down the country, because it simply failed to engage with the issues that they and their industry are facing, or with the challenges to the thousands of jobs not only in those plants but downstream in critical manufacturing and infrastructure projects that depend on British steel.
The steel that is produced in my constituency’s plant is crucial to British national infrastructure, to defence projects, to infrastructure projects such as Crossrail and Hinkley, and to our rail infrastructure. If it is put at risk, as it has been so many times in the past, by cheap imports flooding in from places such as China, Iran and Turkey, that will be an absolute absurdity, not least because our steel is produced in an electric arc furnace from recycled steel in one of the most clean and efficient processes. Why on earth would we want that to be  substituted, to see our carbon emissions offshored to China, to see our high-quality steel replaced at the heart of British national infrastructure projects by lower-quality steel from China? What an absurdity that would be, both for jobs in this country and for our national security.
The TRA’s decisions simply do not make sense. Let me give one brief example. Rebar, which is produced in the plant on my patch, is produced in straight lengths and in coils. Straight lengths would be covered by the proposed safeguards, but coils would not be, and would be substituted, yet they are both produced in exactly the same way. All that would happen is that the quota would be used up on the straight lengths and then loads of coil would flood in. That is an absolute absurdity. It is dangerous for our national infrastructure, for our sovereignty and for our national defence, and I cannot understand why the Government are not willing to take action on that. They are letting down workers up and down the country: in Ashfield, in Scunthorpe, in Corby, in West Brom and in south Wales in places such as Bridgend, instead of taking action at this critical time. We do not want to go back to that crisis of the past when there is an opportunity for steel to be at the heart of our future.
I finish by saying this: the Minister proudly has the Union Jack on his mask, but I want to see the Union Jack stamped on the steel being used at the heart of our national infrastructure, made by British workers for British infrastructure. That is the choice that the Government have tonight.

Lee Anderson: Now then, surely even the Labour party will realise that as we embark on our £640 billion infrastructure campaign we are going to need lots of British steel. We are going to need about 7.6 million tonnes over the next 10 years to build new wind farms, power stations, schools, hospitals, railways and flood defences. We have a record to be proud of: we have provided more than £500 million in relief to the steel industry since 2013, to help it to cope with high electricity costs; we are launching a £350 million industrial energy transformation fund to help businesses with high energy use, including in the steel industry; and we have doubled the proportion of steel procured from within the UK over the past year.
Under Labour, steel production fell by almost 50% and employment in the UK steel industry was cut in half. Industrial electricity prices rose by 66% in the last five years under the Labour Government, crippling the steel industry. Labour MPs complained when we announced new freeports, but they will use a massive amount of British steel and be a welcome boost to large engineering companies such as Abacus Lighting and Caunton Engineering in Ashfield and Eastwood. And they were whingeing about the new royal yacht, which will be made from British steel by British shipbuilders, and will then sail around the world promoting our great country.
Perhaps the Minister will support my idea of building a brand-new yacht for the Labour party. We could call it the HMS Clueless and the skipper would be Labour’s Captain Hindsight, who would lead a motley crew of out-of-touch Labour MPs on a cruise around the world, stopping off at countries that subscribe to their brand of socialism. The first stop would be Cuba, and it would then be off to Venezuela and then North Korea.  But there is mutiny in the air and I feel that Captain Hindsight will have to walk the plank, because below deck the Mayor of Greater Manchester is plotting to take back control of the Labour party and, as usual, poor old Captain Hindsight will not even see it coming.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: What a ridiculous speech we just heard; let us get back to reality.
On 19 May, only 19 days after the passing of the Trade Act 2021, which updated the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, the Secretary of State, who failed to amend the Trade Bill, said:
“The rules of the TRA were set in legislation in 2018, and I think we are in very different times now. We have had a global pandemic. We are much clearer about the issues of supply chains. I have briefed the Committee”—
the International Trade Committee, on which I serve—
“on…the way we are analysing critical goods.”
She went on to say that she would review the case of the TRA and see whether additional safeguards were needed. That was in May. A month and more later, what has the Secretary of State done? Did she review the safeguards that she acknowledged were weak? Did she change the system that she acknowledged was flawed, under which she can only ratchet down? No, she did not.
Last year, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who opened the debate on behalf of the Government, said blatantly that the
“system works…It is already delivering in a number of sectors, including steel”.
He must be on a different planet if he thinks it is working! He said that we have the ability “to act very quickly”. If we have the ability to act quickly, Ministers should do something rather than sitting on their hands!
Let us be clear what is happening: the US, the EU and our other major allies are taking action to stop their domestic markets being undermined; we are doing nothing. Just like when the EU took action and we were the ones dragging our heels when we were in the club, now that we are out of the club we are failing to stand up for our own businesses all over again.
I come to a fundamental point of the TRA. This is what the chairman of the TRA said: he has “sympathy” with the points raised around the environment, workers’ rights and extra protections, but he does not believe that the TRA should take any action on those things. He said that the TRA’s guidelines do not allow him to do so. That is the fundamental problem. The Government have dropped the ball—or maybe they are so wedded to the ideology of “free market against protection” that they are willing to sell our steel and other industries down the river. We will not stand for it. We will vote against it.

Richard Fuller: Changes by politicians to the recommendations of the Trade Remedies Authority is the sort of meddling that the regulations were designed to discourage, because political involvement is too often influenced by lobbying pressure and special interests rather than by the wider benefits to society. The TRA is clear that trade protections should continue where there is evidence of an import surge  over the period of investigation and injury to producers. Protection will continue on 82% by volume of currently protected products. Protection is recommended to end only where there has been no import surge at all or where any increase in imports has resulted in no injury to producers. We should not continue protection when no injury has been incurred.
The motion says that, on Monday 28 June, Labour will be prepared to take all the steps necessary for
“urgent legislative action to protect the vital interests of the British steel industry.”
However, that is false for two reasons. First, as analysis by the authority demonstrates, the changes are designed not to affect steel industry participants. The UK steel industry is at risk from dumping arising from chronic global over-supply, but it also suffers from relatively high labour costs, burdensome energy costs, a large green footprint for accessing raw materials and an expensive, unproven and unfunded pathway to a green steel future, none of which is addressed in the motion but all of which is vital for the industry’s future.
Secondly, the Labour motion seeks to align completely the largely private interests of the owners of businesses in the steel industry—some of them are good; some of them are a bit more dodgy—with the interests of UK taxpayers as a whole. Those interests may overlap, but they are not identical. The motion is an incoherent gesture, not a viable strategy for the UK steel industry, demonstrating the superficiality of Labour’s approach to the steel industry, just as Labour’s call to put taxpayers’ money into a firm that is now under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office was a few weeks ago.
If the UK wishes to have a vibrant steel industry, it needs the sort of thorough review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is undertaking. Should the industry require additional investment by the UK taxpayer, the case for that will have to stand up well to Treasury scrutiny. The context for the Treasury includes: that the UK economy is already being taxed at its highest rate since the 1960s; that Government debt is already at nearly 100% of GDP; that last year the UK ran its largest ever peacetime deficit of £303 billion; that, worryingly, £303 billion means that we are borrowing one third of all public expenditure; and that, in 2020, the Bank of England bought approximately 80% of that borrowing. Quantitative easing to finance Government expenditure rather than to meet an inflation target is an emergency tactic, not a regular tool of fiscal policy, and the benign period of its availability is coming to an end.
This Parliament needs to start making tough decisions if we are to make space to support our UK steel industry’s green transition. If we can address bigger issues along the lines of infrastructure projects, we can support the green change in the steel industry.

Mark Tami: In recent years, the UK steel industry has lurched from one crisis to another, with a Government who have used every excuse in the book not to step in. For years, we were told that European rules and regulation prevented us from supporting our domestic industry and procuring UK steel. Despite the fact that that was not true—we  saw our European partners use their steel in infrastructure projects time and again—in the UK, we had project after project using imported steel, despite alternatives being available.
UK steel makes up only about 10% of UK public sector demand. That is pathetic, but it will not change unless the Government work with UK steel well in advance of major procurements to maximise UK input. Too often, it is an afterthought, or left to the companies delivering the projects, with Government turning a blind eye. The Government are right that the industry needs to modernise and invest in new technologies to meet the challenges of the future, but that is not simply going to happen by some sort of magic. It is no good just saying to an industry that relies on coal and high-energy usage that it needs to change and decarbonise overnight. This industry pays 86% more for its electricity than in Germany and 62% more than in France, and that imbalance is set to get worse rather than better. It is no good saying that hydrogen is the solution to every problem going when we do not have a single facility in the UK, unlike in other countries. The industry will need help and support to meet these challenges and not just warm words and no action, which is what we have seen up until now.
As with energy prices, where the Government refuse to help and just say that it is an issue for Ofgem rather than for them, we now face the major challenge of the TRA judgment making it open season to dump products on the UK. We have seen the results of that dumping for many years. How is our domestic industry expected to survive, let alone compete, in these circumstances? Again we hear from the Minister tonight, “There’s nothing we can do.” Well, that is not good enough. We need to legislate now if we are going to make sure that we can maintain these safeguards and save our industry. Time is not with us and failure to act would be disastrous. Shotton steelworks celebrates 125 years of production this year. Let us hope and trust that there are many more years to come.

Miriam Cates: I am very much in favour of free trade, which contributes to prosperity, innovation and fairness across the world. However, free trade requires a level playing field, and right now the pitch on which our UK steel industry is trying to compete is uphill and full of holes. Our British steelmakers cannot compete on price with foreign manufacturers many of whom have far cheaper energy prices and receive massive state subsidies. Other countries also employ market-distorting practices such as steel dumping, with the deliberate intention of putting British steel manufacturers out of business. That is why we, and the US and the EU, have rightly implemented steel safeguards over recent years to protect domestic industries from unfair and malicious practices that are the very antithesis of free trade. It is therefore incomprehensible that the Trade Remedies Authority is recommending that we allow over half our safeguards on steel products to lapse, at a time when the EU and the US will be maintaining their safeguards in response to the continuing threats to steel producers around the world.
Steel is a critical national industry producing essential materials for our infrastructure and our nuclear and defence capabilities. Steel is therefore crucial to our security. It is also an industry that is vital to our economy. Steel supports  over 33,000 jobs, including many hundreds in the Stocksbridge steelworks in my constituency. I know that the Government fully understand this. I am grateful for the frequent engagement of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary with me on this issue and the welcome commitment of the Minister today to use anti-dumping measures where necessary. I also look forward to meeting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister later this week to discuss this issue further. The recommendations of the TRA could be devastating for UK steel and I am concerned that they are based on the wrong data and fail to take into account the international situation.
We need to take action to retain our steel safeguards. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade does not currently have the power that she needs to ensure that that happens. However, the necessary changes are legally complex, and the Opposition’s proposal will breach World Trade Organisation rules and could result in retaliatory tariffs from other nations. Although we must act quickly, we must also be certain to act legally, and a quick Bill thrown together on the back of an Opposition debate is not the proper way to give our steel industry the protection it needs. We cannot afford to get this wrong. Although I cannot support the motion, I do urge the Government to take rapid action to reform the TRA and give new powers to the Secretary of State. In 2016, people in my constituency voted to take back control. That means our democratically elected Government having the final say over our trade policy. The Government must act to back UK steel.

Chi Onwurah: I am a great believer in trade. I am currently holding a series of DIT-sponsored trade roundtables in my constituency, and as chair of the all-party group for Africa championing the positive power of fair trade. Trade can help lift countries out of poverty, drive innovation and promote sustainable economic development. There is no such thing as free trade in the sense of trade free from political and regulatory choices. What this Government mean by free trade is choosing to pursue the lowest common denominator—low wages, bad processes, environmental destruction, and human rights abuses. There are two important consequences of that. First, our national interest demands a sovereign steel capability, as do other countries’ interests. That is why there is a current glut of steel production, as our competitors, in particular China, ensure that their steel capabilities survive the pandemic and technological change. That is why ideologically puritanical free trade does not work for a sector such as steel, and is at the heart of the Government’s betrayal of the steel industry.
Secondly, because there are always political and policy decisions to be made, it is essential to have workers’ representatives in the room when these decisions are taken, which this Government refuse to do. Without workers’ involvement, global Britain will not be politically sustainable. Last month, I chaired an international TUC-Labour discussion on building a workers’ trade agenda. Trade unions in other countries have considerably more access to trade negotiations. Katherine Tai, President Biden’s new trade commissioner, is an example to follow. She says:
“We know that trade is essential to a functioning global economy. It is clear, however, that the past promises made to workers on trade were not met…The consequences for families  when factories closed and jobs were sent overseas were real…It is the result of a long pursuit of tax, trade, labour and other policies that encouraged a race to the bottom.”
The Biden Administration intend to improve workers’ representation in trade policy in the US and in the World Trade Organisation. Furthermore, the recently signed United States, Mexico, Canada agreements include the strongest labour and environmental standards in any agreement. If workers in the US are worried that workers in Mexico are being denied the right to organise, a rapid response on traded goods can follow.
Let me finish by quoting President Biden:
“As we emerge from this pandemic that has exacerbated inequity and put an even greater strain on workers’ families, we have to prove that democracy can deliver. We do that by empowering workers, raising wages, standing up for union rights and holding bad actors accountable when they subject their citizens to forced labour and child labour.”
Why is it that our Government want to sell our steelworkers out to China and preside over a race to the bottom?

Peter Gibson: Steel has played an important role in Darlington’s past and is set, thanks to this Conservative Government, to play an important role in our clean, green future. Indeed, Darlington is home to a British steel site, and on its outskirts is the world renowned Cleveland Bridge, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) will say more about.
We all know that steel has heavily influenced our national story whether that be in our railways, our bridges or our ships. Sadly, the industry has been in decline for too long with lost jobs for thousands. Indeed, many of these jobs were lost under the last Labour Government.
I am proud that the Tees Valley has been at the forefront of British steel manufacturing for 170 years and while the old Redcar Steelworks closed in 2015, we have a bright future as the home of the innovation and design sector, on which I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) will expand.
This Conservative Government are delivering where the last Labour Government failed. We are supporting this key industry by directly investing in our national infrastructure, using British steel to help revolutionise our transport and energy sectors. This Government are doubling the amount of steel procured within the UK and using British steel in the £640 billion infrastructure spending. Steel made in Britain will help us to build back Britain as we look beyond the pandemic. HS2, Dogger Bank, Hinkley Point C as well as new schools, hospitals and flood defences across the UK are being built with British steel. I am delighted that Cleveland Bridge, staffed by many of my constituents, will be providing its expertise for many of these projects.
In addition, this Government are helping to decarbonise the sector. That has been achieved by creating a new £250 million clean steel fund, and launching a £315 million industrial energy transformation fund to help businesses with high energy use, helping the industry to cut its bills and emissions. While the Labour party does nothing but talk down the steel sector, failing to support production and jobs, this Conservative Government are supporting the industry, so that British steel is best placed to benefit from the opportunities presented by our new trade deals around the world, and our massive infrastructure investment.

Stephen Kinnock: My Aberavon constituency is home to the UK’s largest steelworks, employing around 4,000 men and women, and sustaining thousands more jobs through its supply chains. The steelworks are the beating heart of our local economy and community, yet for 10 years, successive Conservative Governments have failed to recognise that the steel industry not only delivers prosperity, but also makes a vital contribution to our country’s security and resilience.
Every military vehicle, major infrastructure project and power station requires steel. Steel enables us to stand on our own two feet as a nation. Homegrown steel is the only route to tackling climate change, and it will play a critical role in greening our economy, from electric cars to solar, wind and tidal power. British production processes have half the carbon footprint of China’s far less decarbonised steel industry, and shipping steel from the other side of the world is obviously more carbon intensive.
That is why Labour Members are clear about our determination to keep all 19 UK steel safeguards. This is not in any way an argument against free and fair trade; it is an argument for free and fair trade, because the “free” without the “fair” is meaningless, and we cannot have one without the other. Global overcapacity in 2019 was estimated to be 514 million tonnes, dwarfing the 10 million tonne UK market. That was largely driven by China, whose steel industry is 80% state owned, and deliberately over-produces and illegally dumps steel to damage western economies. Indeed, only two out of the top 10 steel markets in the world currently have no tariffs or quotas in place. When a tidal wave is about to hit, it makes no sense to remove our flood defences.
This entire process has been a shambles from start to finish. First, too many powers were handed to the Trade Remedies Authority. Secondly, the TRA failed to undertake a responsible process. It failed to use accurate industry figures, to engage properly with industry and trade unions, or to consider the interconnectedness of the industry, and the impact that the removal of those nine safeguards will have on wider business models. That points to a wider fear that the Conservatives’ independent trade policy has nothing to do with supporting UK business to flourish, and is in fact all about removing safeguards and lowering standards, so that the UK can more easily negotiate minor trade deals.
Last week the Government sold out our farmers in desperation to get the UK-Australia deal across the line. Now they are looking to sell out our steelworkers, with the removal of steel import safeguards. Tonight’s vote is a big moment for the Government. Indeed, it is a litmus test of their much-heralded independent trade policy.

Paul Howell: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. In post-Brexit Britain it is important not to underestimate the importance of the British steel industry to the UK economy. In Sedgefield alone, an array of companies form part of the steel industry’s supply chain, from large international manufacturers such as Cleveland Bridge and Gestamp, to vital local small and medium-sized businesses such as Ebac and Finley Structures.
The steel industry’s supply chain plays a huge role in the local Sedgefield economy and it is therefore essential that the industry is resilient, increasing job security and creating high skilled apprenticeships and jobs for young people. I note the hypocrisy of the Opposition, who wish to debate and comment on what this Government should be doing to support the steel industry, while sitting on a track record of 13 years of Government with no proactive policies to help the steel sector move forward.
The Labour party has historically failed to offer support to such an essential industry. Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was Labour leader, not once did he mention such a pivotal sector to our economy in this place. Industry experts even accused a predecessor of mine, the then Prime Minister, of a deliberate slight against the UK steel industry when in 2002 he put party donors before UK steel manufacturers. The purpose of Government is to act. When Labour was in government it chose not to, but now, when Labour Members do not have to take responsibility for delivery, they are full of instructions.
The Conservative party is different, and I know that this Government are committed to ensuring that UK steel prospers into the future. There is, however, always more that we can do to listen to the needs of the industry and engage with sector leaders to ensure that the Government know exactly what they need to do not only to survive but to build resilience and prosper. I recently held discussions with international steel products manufacturer Gestamp, which employs more 1,000 people at its Newton Aycliffe plant. It has some innovative and progressive ideas about how the Government can help to build industry resilience. I encourage Ministers to visit companies such as Gestamp, which can be really valuable contributors to future policy discussions.
The recommendations of the Trade Remedies Authority are on the desk of our excellent Secretary of State for International Trade, who has been to Sedgefield several times to see at first hand the excellent work of all our local manufacturers. I would encourage her to return and visit those in the steel industry supply chain. I am sure she will give the recommendations the full consideration they deserve, and I look forward to her update to the House.
Building resilient UK supply chains will be vital to our economy in the coming years and decades. The steel industry is one of the most critical and currently contributes £2 billion to the economy. I am sure the Government will take the necessary actions by building upon progressive procurement policies and supporting all of our fantastic steel supply chain, up and down the country.

Liz Twist: Steel, as we have heard from so many speakers, is absolutely vital to the UK, and it is good to see that British steel provides 70% of the UK’s annual requirements and is particularly important in a whole range of things. Like other hon. Members, I have manufacturers in my constituency that rely on steel and on the supply of steel, but today I want to touch on the issue of the Trade Remedies Authority.
As we have heard, back in 2017 Labour pointed out the need for a body to regulate trade. However, the current body is not the most suitable one for our steel industry. We warned against the Government creating a  Trade Remedies Authority that was unfit for purpose. They did not listen to those warnings, and we are now sadly seeing the consequences of that failure to listen unfold. A Trade Remedies Authority made up of economists and backed by incomplete HMRC data will never be enough to reflect the true complexities and nuances of the steel industry. A Trade Remedies Authority devoid of union input will never be able to truly reflect workers’ voices, with their practical experience of the sector and understanding of British steel. A Trade Remedies Authority without actual industry representatives, such as those working with steel in the UK, will never truly understand the consequences of its decisions or the impact on local communities such as mine.
The TRA as it stands lacks the ideas and experience necessary to tackle the issues that the steel industry faces. That means that it is making skewed recommendations that will drive a race to the bottom, with dangerous consequences for our industry. Its powers of investigation are too narrowly focused. Recommendations on sectors such as steel need to consider the impact on employment, communities, critical national infrastructure and defence procurement. Crucially, they need to understand that what we do in one part of the industry affects the whole. Instead, we have a narrow and blinkered assessment of pricing, supply and demand in individual product categories, with no sense of the wider picture.
This kind of outcome was entirely predictable and avoidable, but fortunately it is not too late. The motion before us allows for emergency action to reject these flawed, narrow recommendations and save our steel industry from the consequences. But even more than that, I hope it will allow the Government to reflect on their approach to the TRA. They must listen to British steel makers and work with Labour to establish a revised trade remedies process, accepting that its remit needs to change.

Jacob Young: I will confine my remarks to the three obstacles that the UK steel industry faces. The first, the subject at the heart of today’s debate, is global competition and the impact of tariffs. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates): we support free global trade, but when it comes to steel making, there is currently no free market. Almost every nation that makes steel does so with some form of subsidy or trade barrier, so we need to consider a sensible response.
This is a complex issue, and the conclusions of the independent TRA do not seem to reflect the reality of the interdependence of our industry. The current situation is to the detriment of the UK, so we need to consider how we combat that unfairness. I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s comments about reviewing the powers of the Secretary of State.
The second obstacle is UK procurement. It was said in our previous debate that we must build back better, but why not build back British? More than 2 million tonnes of steel are estimated to be used in HS2—let us use UK-sourced steel and make HS2 a project that benefits every corner of the UK, not just London to Birmingham. The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan requires steel for increasing our offshore wind capacity and for building electric cars, carbon capture, utilisation and storage plants and nuclear power plants—let us build them with British steel.
The third obstacle is energy pricing. I am really pleased to see the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth in her place, because we have spoken about the matter many times before. In the steel and chemical industries, energy costs remain uncompetitive in comparison with the continent. These are energy-intensive industries: whether they are producing steel through blast or electric arc technology, or breaking chemical bonds to drive chemical reactions, they need a lot of energy. The problem will only increase as we switch to lower-carbon fuels, so I urge the Government to come forward with a strategy to level the playing field in this area, too.
I commend the Government for their commitment to UK steel so far. The Labour party pretends that the Government do not care about our industry, but if it were not for this Prime Minister—and this Chancellor, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury—we would have barely any steel left in Redcar and Cleveland. It was their commitment to seeing through the sale of British Steel in Lackenby, Skinningrove and Scunthorpe that protected the thousands of jobs that depended on it.
On his visit to Redcar and Cleveland, the Prime Minister said:
“I think British steel is a very important national asset. I think the fact that we make steel in this country is of strategic long-term importance”.
I wholeheartedly agree. I want us to be stronger. We have to be strategic. We need to continue to back our steel industry.

Jessica Morden: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for initiating this crucial debate in Opposition time, which shows that she is giving it the importance that it deserves, and for making such a strong case for the need for emergency legislation to allow Ministers to reject the TRA’s recommendations and temporarily extend the steel safeguards so that they do not expire at the end of the month and we can allow for a longer-term solution. It was a pity that we had such a woeful response from the Minister tonight.
Let us remember that UK Steel called the TRA’s recommendations
“a hammer blow to the UK steel sector”
and to steel communities. I echo what other hon. Members have said about the TRA recommendations. The safeguards are vital if we are to provide a stable environment for the sector and protect against unprecedented import surges from better-protected markets. Slashing those safeguards after Brexit would see the UK become one of the least protected of the major steel markets, undermining our own industry. The EU is maintaining its old steel safeguards, as is the USA. Why, at a time when the global steel market is dealing with overcapacity and looking to recover from the economic shock of the pandemic, are our Government even considering allowing the withdrawal of vital protections for our steel sector?
Steel should be at the heart of our economic recovery. It employs 33,000 people directly and is a strategic industry that is vital to our regional economies. Removing key steel safeguards would simply compound the prevailing challenges that the industry already faces. Our steelworkers, including those at Tata Llanwern, Liberty and Celsa in  my constituency, are some of the most experienced and best-skilled in the world, but they already have to compete with one hand behind their back in so many ways, with sky-high industrial energy costs and frankly inadequate UK Government procurement policies. Then there is the whole issue of bonded warehouses, which effectively undercut producers by waiving duties on cheap foreign imports. We need action on that for the Liberty plant in my constituency, currently being undercut by the storage of massive imports of Turkish steel products in bonded warehouses.
When Britain left the EU, this Tory Government made a promise that we would be able to support British industry more than we had done previously and that foundation sectors such as steel would be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. Unfortunately, here is one of the major tests of our new trading priorities, and the Government are sitting on their hands and pretending there is nothing they can do. How can our steel sites supposedly make a business case to investors for long-term projects such as decarbonising when the Government speak positively about the industry one day, only to strip away protections the next? It is a nonsense. I urge the Government to get their act together and secure a long-term solution on safeguards, which are so important to the industry. There is a motion here today that they could choose to adopt, and in doing so they could help the industry. It is a massive test for the Government, and one our industry cannot afford for them to fail.

Geraint Davies: We cannot allow cheap carbon-intensive steel from China to destroy our steel industry and our planet. Over half the steel in the world is now produced by China—the amount has doubled in the last 20 years—and we face a climate catastrophe. British steel uses 50% less carbon, and we have a situation in which, since Kyoto, global emissions have gone up 60% since 1990. The Paris limit of 1.5° C will be breached by 2025, and 8,500 tonnes of ice is melting every second of this debate in Greenland. China is emitting 28% of global emissions, which is more than the US and the EU combined: 7 tonnes of carbon per person, compared with 5.8 tonnes in Britain. On a consumption basis we do 8 tonnes, because we have subcontracted our coal-fired power stations and manufacturing to China. China now has over half the capacity for coal-fired power stations—1,037 coal-fired power stations—and it plans another 300. Its emissions will not peak until 2030, and we do not know what that peak will be. It will only be carbon neutral by 2060, and that is not even net zero.
We must act. We need to have the same tariff safeguards as the EU and the US against the dirty steel the Chinese are dumping. We need to switch to the border adjustment carbon tax being considered by the EU, which factors the carbon price into those taxes, for COP26. We have talked a lot today about the balance between strategic industrial interests and consumer prices, but those consumer prices need to factor in the environmental cost of carbon. It must be in the guidelines for the TRA to make these recommendations, which it is not. Buying more carbon-intensive products—whether steel, manufacturing or agriculture—is destroying our planet. Let us build back  greener, reward lower carbon, tax higher carbon in COP26 and remember that, as the US says, we want to make trade a force for good that encourages a race to the top—not just for workers’ rights, but for our environment. Let us build back British steel, let us have a safer planet and let us protect jobs in Wales, in England and beyond.

Jerome Mayhew: The TRA’s sole function is to look at data and decide whether to impose trade restrictions to protect the UK steel market from unforeseen surges of imports to ensure fair trade. It is not there to put up protectionist barriers to international trade. Its recommendations are based on detailed research into the UK steel market. So it is not so much the data that Labour challenges—as was made clear earlier this evening, it is the terms of reference given to the TRA. Let us be clear: Labour wants to move to outright protectionism.
Extending tariffs that are not justified by the data shifts the debate from ensuring fair competition, which drives long-term economic growth and prosperity, to outright protectionism, which corrodes markets and makes us all poorer. That is particularly the case with a foundation product such as steel. Labour wants to put up the price of steel for all the manufacturers of the United Kingdom, making their products more expensive and then less competitive. What does Labour suggest when they struggle against cheaper imports—more protectionism? Even its current proposal is so extreme that it would require us to leave the World Trade Organisation. What next? These are the economics of the Soviet Union.
The Government are right to focus on defending fair competition while supporting our steel industry to adopt low-carbon energy sources as we move toward renewable supplies, supporting our producers to the tune of £500 million since 2013 so that our cleaner energy does not disadvantage them. In the long run though, we need to move away from clumsy and expensive state support. Rather than costing our Treasury money to compensate industry, a carbon border adjustment mechanism would raise income from high-carbon imports, providing funds to invest in our own decarbonisation plans. Those are supports that can work within WTO rules, not in flagrant breach of them, as Labour wants.
No longer will our exports be penalised by relatively high energy costs or be undercut in our domestic market by dirty imports. Such a mechanism will allow us to price carbon realistically, unleashing the power of the free market to nose out lower-carbon alternatives as part of the unending price war that real competition brings. That is the kind of policy framework that a serious Opposition would be proposing. If the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) wants to modernise the Labour party, he should start with the Soviet dinosaurs in his BEIS team.

Sarah Champion: The decision whether to extend safeguards in steel production is the first real test of the UK’s independent trade policy. As of today, it is a test that the Government have woefully failed. The recommendation of TRID, now confirmed by the TRA, is a crushing blow to the UK steel industry,  coming at a time when it faces myriad challenges, both long and short term. The recommendation will leave almost half of all UK-produced steel production categories and a third of UK-produced steel by volume at the mercy of import surges, with devastating consequences. The interconnected nature of the industry means that those consequences will be felt across the sector.
Both the US and the EU are almost certain to extend their own safeguards. In contrast, Britain stands ready to open up our own markets, leaving import challenges inevitable; at the same time, our exports will face substantial tariff barriers, placing UK-produced steel at a huge disadvantage in the global markets. For years, the Government have blamed EU rules for their own failure to provide the UK steel industry with the backing it deserves. Now, free from those rules, rather than fighting to protect our industries, the Government are using steel as the canary in the coalmine.
This decision could not come at a worse time for the industry. In Rotherham, my constituents face profound uncertainty. The crisis that has engulfed Liberty Steel has placed steel production in the town in jeopardy. Steel is central to our local economy. With more than 900 Liberty staff based in Rotherham and many more workers in the steel supply chains, its loss would be a colossal blow, but more is at stake than the economic impact. Steel is integral to our town’s identity, its pride, its heritage. Although there has been some good news recently, with Liberty reiterating its commitment to the Aldwarke plant, the decision to seek a buyer for its specialist steels arms, which include the Brinsworth narrow strip mill, is a cause of real concern.
To date, the Government have done little more than keep a watching brief. We cannot allow this to continue. The Government must play an active role to make sure that our industry is secure.

Rosie Winterton: We now go via videolink to Grahame Morris. To reiterate, if he speaks for less than three minutes, we will get more people in.

Grahame Morris: Steel is a vital industry—vital to our economy, our national security, and the prosperity of communities outside London and the south-east. If the Government implement the Trade Remedies Authority’s recommendations to scrap nine of the 19 safeguard tariffs on steel, it will pave the way for cheap imports that will undermine our domestic steel industry at the worst possible time.
Current trade policy is failing the UK’s regions. Despite the protestations of Government Members, time and again the Conservatives have failed to back British steel, opting instead to rely on imported steel in Government procurement contracts. Ministers and the TRA are undermining an industry that, as we have heard, directly employs nearly 34,000 people in relatively well paid and highly skilled jobs and supports a further 42,000 jobs in the supply chain. Labour has pledged to build in Britain to create UK manufacturing jobs in the low-carbon infrastructure of the future. We cannot allow the Government to offshore this vital industry. British steel should be at the heart of every major UK defence and infrastructure project. We need to see investment in decarbonisation and in hydrogen technology that will  enable our steel industry to lead the way towards achieving the UK’s net zero target and safeguard good, well-paid green jobs in the process.
We need a trade policy that empowers workers. Labour warned that the lack of representation for both industry and unions on the Trade Remedies Authority would be detrimental and lead to the kind of recommendations that this motion seeks to reject today. My union, Unite, which represents thousands of members in all areas of the steel industry, is urging the Government to take immediate action to stabilise the industry. I share the concerns of Unite assistant general secretary, Steve Turner, who said that
“there is a real danger that a combination of ideology and the wrong political choices will open the gates to cheap imports, which will costs thousands of skilled jobs and devastate local communities.”
The Government may be willing to abandon steelworkers and their communities, but my party—the Labour party—will do whatever it takes to defend and protect them and build a stronger, greener, more prosperous British steel industry for the future.

Toby Perkins: We have heard impassioned speeches on both side of the House from Members who represent steelmaking constituencies. I am really pleased that the motion from my hon. Friends also recognises the importance of those in the supply chain, because in Chesterfield, with our close proximity to Sheffield, we have a long-standing history of supply to the steel industry, and that is incredibly important.
What is slightly missing from this debate is how crucial the steel industry is not just to those people employed directly in it or those supplying it, but to manufacturing in the UK more broadly. In terms of the role of global Britain and supporting global manufacturing, having a competitive steel industry here in the UK is absolutely crucial and we must give that support. I feel that the Government do not think through the consequences of us being entirely dependent on China, in terms of our global independence. When I heard the contribution from the Minister at the start of the debate, it made me wonder if that was really the party that, just a few months ago, was claiming that they would enable us to “take back control”, because he simply stood at the Dispatch Box, threw his arms in the air and said that there is nothing that we can do. I am glad that there are some Government Members—in Stocksbridge, in Scunthorpe—who do recognise how dangerous this will be. Let us see how they vote later today and whether they do so based on the sentiments that they laid out.
Manufacturers in Chesterfield have been coming to me saying that the steel prices that have rocketed up recently and a Government who are washing their hands of any responsibility are making UK manufacturers outside the steel industry desperately concerned that they will no longer be competitive in future.

Rosie Winterton: I call Beth Winter, who has two minutes.

Beth Winter: I come from a family of Welsh industrial workers. My father and grandfather were coalminers and my other grandfather worked for  the steel industry. The steel industry is a vital part of the Welsh economy. Along with the coal industry, it is part of our industrial heritage, and I want steel to be part of our future, too. I have seen at first hand the devastation caused to communities by the closure of the mining industry and I do not want the same to happen to the steel industry. It employs thousands in jobs in Wales, and many through the supply chain, and the median salary in the steel sector is around £34,000 a year. While this may seem humble to the average Tory, it is 45% above the median salary in Wales. It provides stable, well-paid jobs—gold dust in parts of the country such as mine that have been neglected by successive Tory Governments.
The Government talk of levelling up, but we judge them by their actions, not their words. Their failure to protect and modernise the industry adequately belies the levelling-up rhetoric. Levelling up for the steel industry in Wales will be sacrificed on the altar of the Government’s uncaring pursuit of free trade agreements. If Wales is to meet its carbon emissions target, the steel industry needs considerable investment, and the UK will not achieve its target for emissions unless the steel industry in Wales is adequately financed to enable this to happen.
There are measures that this Government can take to protect the British steel industry, particularly in this post-Brexit world. Not to take those steps would be an abrogation of the Government’s responsibility to the British people. Not to invest in the necessary infrastructure for the future green industry would be a denial of their obligations to future generations. That is why I fully support this motion.

Rosie Winterton: I apologise to those who have not been able to get in, but I need to start the wind-ups now.

Ed Miliband: We have had an excellent debate with noteworthy contributions from all parts of the House. I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), on securing this debate, and I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for Neath (Christina Rees), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). As I said, there were great speeches from all parts of the House.
At the heart of the debate is a question. We can all talk the rhetoric of building back better, but the question facing us is: when hard decisions have to be made, is rhetoric matched by reality? There is no greater test than how we treat the steel industry, because steel supports tens of thousands of high-skilled, high-wage jobs that are the pride of communities across our country,  because a strong domestic steel industry is essential to our national manufacturing success and because steel is vital for our national security. We should be using every tool at our disposal to support the industry. That means Government putting their money where their mouth is in enabling steel to navigate the green transition, it means doing whatever it takes to support employment and it means making the right decisions on trade.
Let me come to the heart of our motion. The Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), drew the short straw at the International Trade team meeting by being sent out to bat when the Government have no position, or at least no position that I could comprehend from his speech, but this is an incredibly serious situation. We are nine days away from these protections lapsing.
Let us just be clear for the Minister and the House about what UK Steel is saying would be the impact of the measures lapsing:
“a hammer blow to the UK steel sector…utter madness…the UK’s new system has failed our domestic steel sector.”
The decision reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the realities of steel production. That is the reality.
What UK Steel is saying is not based on ideology, but on a practical assessment of the international steel market. Indeed, it has been well described by a former steel analyst, who said that
“something like 2 billion tonnes are produced every year, and there is a global glut. Lots of steel is being produced, and the real danger is that, somehow, we are exposed to dumping and to people overproducing and, essentially, undercutting our own producers.”
That former steel analyst is none other than the Business Secretary, appearing at the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee less than a month ago on 25 May.
The Business Secretary went on to say:
“This is a problem that is faced by all steel producers. The US has Section 232 tariffs. The EU, of which we were a member…had its own safeguards and tariff protections…We have to try to work out how we navigate this global glut of steel.”
Here we have a Government Minister who correctly identifies the problem—the risks of global oversupply—yet his own Government are deciding actively to remove the very safeguards against it, to ignore the warnings of the steel industry and steelworkers, to undermine the promises that the Government are making to the sector and to weaken our domestic steel manufacturers. We should be very clear about that because Members, particularly on the Government Benches, were concerned about it.
This is an insurance policy. These tariffs kick in once imports get above a certain quota, set at 111% of historic imports. It is a balanced insurance policy to prevent the oversupply that the Secretary of State identifies. The TRA is proposing to remove the insurance policy in half the product categories. I have read the TRA document and I have listened to the debate, and the case is simply not made out for that. We cannot argue that these are nine areas where we do not have domestic production, because we do, and we cannot say that there is no risk of serious injury to domestic producers, because the industry itself says there is. It simply leaves us with this argument: that we should have the cheap imports at the expense of our domestic industry. In other words, we are failing to learn all the lessons of the past, and here we are. What is the EU doing? Well, the  EU is retaining its existing protections. I have to say that it does seem extraordinary that here we are, six months after the end of the transition period—when we were told that Brexit would provide stronger domestic protections for our industry—having to argue with the Government to keep the domestic protections that were in place when we were in the European Union. It makes no sense. No wonder our steel manufacturers are reacting with anger and disbelief, uncomprehending, and asking, “How are we even in this position?”
It is easy in these circumstances to blame the TRA, and, indeed, I think it has made the wrong decision. But this is also about the remit that it has been given. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a bit of a nerd—much of a nerd. Paragraph 30 of the TRA’s document says that it has had representations about the interconnectedness of the industry—that we cannot simply separate out products—but it says pretty clearly that that is not really the way it can think about these issues. It cannot look at the interconnectedness of the industry, nor, indeed, a whole set of issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury. It cannot be right that the Government implement these flawed recommendations.
There is also a wider issue, which is that the legislation around the TRA is clearly not fit for purpose. That is why we have tabled this motion. It is hardly as though we are jumping the gun. We are nine days from the end of this protection. I mean, come on! What is the answer here? Our steelworkers and steel manufacturers want to know what the answer is from a Government who say they are standing up for steel. We have made our suggestion about how to deal with this, through emergency legislation. If there is a better suggestion, I look forward to hearing it from the Minister. The Government know in their heart of hearts that they are there in a ridiculous position, but it is time that they did something about it; they owe it to the steel industry to do something about it.
There is a wider context that I want briefly to mention, because it is symptomatic of a failure to have the kind of industrial policy for steel that we need. Steel faces a huge green transition—the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about it—but let us be clear about the scale of the task that we all face in this House. The industry says that we need billions for the green steel transition. A £250 million clean steel fund in 2023 is not going to cut the mustard. It is not going to give us the steel industry that we need in the future. There is a big choice for us as a country: do we invest to retain steelmaking capacity, with all the jobs and security it brings; or do we have some kind of neglect of the industry, with devastating consequences?
It is true of hydrogen as well. A £240 million hydrogen fund is better than nothing, but the Germans are offering €9 billion to invest in hydrogen. We face uniquely high energy prices, the whole issue of public procurement, whereby we still spend 25% on foreign steel, and an industry that is too often lurching from crisis to crisis, stuck in a long cycle of foreign acquisitions, insolvencies and bail-outs. To secure a long-term future, we must break this cycle. That is why we need a comprehensive industrial strategy for our UK steel sector, but we still do not see it from this Government.
For the first time in nearly 50 years, the UK has sole autonomy and responsibility for our external trade policy. We have to use this opportunity to develop a  trade policy that supports an active industrial strategy that will help grow our foundational industries. I actually think that that view is mostly shared on both sides of the House, but that is why the position we have reached is so incomprehensible. We are not debating how we strengthen the protections for our domestic industry; we are desperately trying to cling on to the protections that we used to have.
Good rhetoric is not enough to help our steel industry; we need action. We need action in the next nine days. The Government must act to keep these protections in place. As we have heard on both sides of the Chamber, they must also give this House the ability to put our national economic interests first in trade decisions. We also need a comprehensive plan to support our steel industry, and deliver the manufacturing and industrial future that we need. We owe it to the communities of our country and to their future to deliver it.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank everyone who has spoken on this important topic this evening. We have heard some passionate speeches, not least just now from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and I recognise the significant concern being expressed by all colleagues on behalf of UK steel producers.
Hon. Members heard the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), clearly set out the role of the Trade Remedies Authority, which is sponsored by the Department for International Trade, and how its recommendation process works. The world has changed since 2018 when these powers were put in place, so my Department is very supportive of the Trade Secretary’s desire to review the domestic toolkit, given the challenges of global trade. At the same time, my ministerial colleagues in BEIS and I will continue to devote our focus to the future of this important sector. Although the global economic context is challenging, hon. Members will recall that the Secretary of State said when giving oral evidence to the BEIS Committee’s inquiry into the future of steel that the UK industry will continue to need high-quality steel and British steel is among the best in the world. Making sure our steel industry has the right conditions to thrive is a key part of our efforts to reach net zero and level up across our country.
There should be no doubt that this Government are committed to UK steel making, as the Secretary of State has affirmed, both at that session and on a number of recent occasions. We are already working to protect jobs and we are straining every sinew to ensure that the industry succeeds at securing a sustainable future. Our unprecedented package of covid-19 support over the past year is still available to the sector, to protect jobs and to ensure that producers have the right support during what has been and continues to be a challenging time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and for Redcar (Jacob Young), whom I know have all met the Business Secretary today to discuss the best way forward for the industry, will, I hope, be reassured about our commitment to our UK steel sector. As many hon. Members with close links to  steel will know, the Government are working closely with industry and trade unions to understand how we can, together, create a sustainable future for the steel sector in the UK. We recognise absolutely that industrial users in the UK pay higher electricity costs than European competitors, which is why since 2013 we have provided more than £500 million in relief to help steel producers with electricity costs, and we are currently consulting steel companies on the future of such schemes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) highlighted, the Government’s £350 million industrial energy transformation fund will support businesses with high energy use to cut their bills and reduce carbon emissions. It is a fact that to reach our ambitious net zero target the UK steel sector does need to decarbonise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) set out so eloquently. Our new industrial decarbonisation strategy, which is the first net zero-aligned strategy from a major economy, sets out, for the first time, the Government’s comprehensive assessment of how industry, including the steel sector, can decarbonise in line with net zero in a way that supports competitiveness and clean growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) highlighted, this is an important journey for the industry.
The strategy includes a commitment to work with the UK Steel Council, which the Business Secretary re-formed on 5 March and provides a forum to work in partnership with industry and the unions to develop a plan to support the sector’s transition to a competitive, sustainable and low-carbon future. In particular, we are working with the UK Steel Council to examine the implications of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change to set targets for steelmaking to reach net zero emissions by 2035. In 2019, we announced the £250 million clean steel fund to support the sector to transition to low-carbon iron and steel production through new technologies and processes, so I can reassure the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that we have indeed got the steel industry’s back. This fund is currently in development and we need to take the time to design this policy. Complex decarbonisation projects have long lead-in times and the steel sector has indicated that its preference is for the fund to be launched in 2023.
All that strong steel action is aligned with our prioritisation of science and innovation. We recognise the equally strong economic benefits of public investment in science and innovation, and in its capacity to leverage private investment. Because of that, we will increase public research and development investment to £22 billion per year from 2024-25. We also plan to establish a net zero hydrogen fund, with £240 million of capital co-investment out to 2024-25. This will support at-scale hydrogen production projects, allowing steel producers the potential to access supplies of low-cost hydrogen.
Decarbonisation is one top priority. Another one is resolving procurement challenges that the industry faces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) highlighted. We are working hard to ensure that UK steel producers have the best possible chance of competing for and winning contracts for all Government projects, including those like ships identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), with his now  famous colour. We have established a BEIS industry-led steel procurement taskforce co-chaired by the Minister for investment to explore what Government and industry can do to address the challenges the sector has reported when competing for public contracts.
More broadly, we recently consulted on an ambitious package of procurement reform with the aim of creating a simpler and more flexible regime that works much better for British businesses. The Cabinet Office has now published both the national procurement policy statement and a new procurement policy note on taking account of carbon reduction plans in major projects. BEIS continues to publish our annual steel pipeline, along with data from the previous financial year on levels of steel procured by Departments, origin where known, and compliance with the guidance on procuring steel.
This House should be in no doubt that the Government are working closely with the steel industry and have put our optimism for the future of our steel industry into action.

Toby Perkins: The Minister is saying that this Government have the industry’s back, but the letter by UK Steel read out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made it absolutely clear that it believes that if the Government vote against the motion and do not put in place alternatives, it will be catastrophic for our industry. Why should we believe that the Minister knows better than the very people running the UK steel industry?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I refer back to the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. The tools available to us relating to anti-dumping measures continue to be ones that remain at the forefront of the Secretary of State’s toolkit, as I mentioned. I know she will be focusing on that very closely in the days and weeks ahead. There should be no doubt that we absolutely have the future of our steel industry at the centre. It is a strategic industry and remains so, as so many colleagues have mentioned this evening. Speaking as the Minister challenged with delivering net zero, I can say that the offshore wind industry and the nuclear industry, and so many other critical parts of our infrastructure within the net zero part of this Government’s and this country’s commitment over the next 30 years, will require high quality and hopefully very much British-made steel. We are fully cognisant of the international situation that the industry and all its communities face, so we continue to work to protect jobs and to ensure that the industry succeeds in securing its sustainable future. I firmly believe that we will and know that the Secretary of State will continue to update the House in the days ahead.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 355.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Business without Debate

ADJOURNMENT (CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER AND CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House at its rising on Thursday 23 September 2021, do adjourn until Monday 18 October 2021; at its rising on Tuesday 9 November 2021, do adjourn until Monday 15 November 2021; and at its rising on Thursday 16 December 2021, do adjourn until Tuesday 4 January 2022.—(David Rutley.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 23 June (Standing Order No. 41A).

ESTIMATES (LIAISON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145(3)),
That this House agrees with the Report of the Liaison Committee of 17 June:
(1) That a day not later than 5 August be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for financial year 2021-22: Department for Education, in so far as it relates to the spending of the Department for Education on measures to support education recovery; and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, insofar as it relates to the spending of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on building safety;
and
(2) That a further day not later than 5 August be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimate for financial year 2021-22: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, insofar as it relates to the spending of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on Official Development Assistance and the British Council.—(David Rutley.) Question agreed to.

UK’s Financial Services Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Rutley.)

Bim Afolami: It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as always.
I am delighted to speak about the UK’s greatest success story and one of our most vibrant and innovative sectors, financial services. I am proud to champion it in Parliament through my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial markets and services. I speak as a former corporate lawyer at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. I have also worked in strategy and restructuring at HSBC, so I have experience in the sector. I would like to use this debate to set out my vision for the future path of our financial services sector at a very critical time, to ensure that it delivers benefits to constituents and businesses across our great country.
As the Minister I know appreciates, it is difficult to overstate the importance of financial services to the UK economy. It accounts for almost 7% of the UK’s total economic output. The sector employs over 1 million people, two thirds of whom work outside of London, contrary to what many believe, providing benefits that extend well beyond the historic walls of the City square mile, to bustling financial hubs such as Edinburgh, Belfast, Cardiff and Leeds. Financial services are also a major contributor to the Exchequer, accounting for more than £1 in every £20 of total UK tax receipts, which go to support our public finances and important services such as the NHS. At the same time as having that domestic focus, the UK leads the world as an internationally competitive financial centre. Financial services are an advert for global Britain, attracting international investment.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Member agree that the potential of Brexit to allow for the regulation of our financial services has not yet been realised and that there is more to do in legislating appropriately to ensure a balance, so that growth and the regulation of practice and outcome go hand in hand? We can do better; the potential is there.

Bim Afolami: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, he is right, and I will comment later on ways in which we can use our new freedoms to improve the output of the financial services sector.
Some say that we should not speak too much about financial services, lest it upset certain people in the country or is alienating in some way. I suppose that is a hangover from the financial crisis, but I completely reject that view. We are at a new moment now. We have a fantastic financial services industry; it is world leading, and we need to be proud of it. Indeed, in the face of the unprecedented economic uncertainty created by the pandemic, our financial services industry stood up to the challenge. The financial system remained resilient and responded to customers’ needs, demonstrating the central role that it plays in facilitating and protecting our economy.
When corporates were strapped for cash, there was no liquidity failure in the banking system. Instead, bank lending surged. Working in partnership with the Government, the Treasury and the Bank of England, the sector was able to provide a comprehensive package of support, which included facilitating over £75 billion in emergency finance to 1.6 million businesses. I am pleased to announce to the House that more than £100 million of that support went to my constituency of Hitchin and Harpenden to support more than 2,400 fantastic local businesses through covid and the lockdown. That was on top of an array of forbearance measures for personal customers, including 2.75 million mortgage payment deferrals, 1.8 million credit card and loan payment holidays, and 27 million interest-free overdrafts to customers. In short, our financial system did its job. When there was a crisis, it provided a safety net for the constituents and businesses of Members on both sides of the House.
However, now we need to look forward and build back better from coronavirus. Our financial services industry is at a crossroads. Brexit and the return of rule-making powers to the UK for the first time in decades has created a unique chance, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) remarked, to refit our financial services sector in a way that is better suited to our domestic needs and even more internationally competitive. Parliament, Government, regulators and the industry now have the opportunity to ask fresh questions about what the future of financial services in the UK should look like and how we should fine-tune the rules that govern the sector to provide the right conditions for it to thrive.
At the same time, the UK faces huge international competition. Across the Atlantic, New York is cementing itself as a leading international financial centre. In Asia, financial hubs are catching up with us fast, whether it be Hong Kong, Singapore or other cities. The ambitions of our European friends and neighbours to create onshore financial centres within the European Union bloc at the expense of London—let us not kid ourselves about that—is becoming increasingly apparent. If we are to continue to reap the benefits from this world-leading sector based here in the UK, it is crucial that we get our regulatory changes right in the next period, ensuring that the UK remains an attractive location for both domestic and international firms in the years to come.
Let me now turn to the steps on how we can achieve this. I am glad to say that the Government are wasting no time in realising their ambition to strengthen the UK’s position as a global financial hub. The Prime Minister met financial services leaders on this precise issue only a few weeks ago. Central to the Government’s ambition is the landmark Financial Services Act 2021, on which I spoke in this House and served in the Committee, as the Minister will remember. I once again commend him and his team for their hard work in achieving this vital piece of legislation, which already puts down much of the groundwork on which we can build. Alongside that, I commend the findings from the Government-commissioned reviews from Lord Hill and Ron Kalifa on, respectively, listings and FinTech. I appreciate the work the Government are doing to implement their recommendations without hesitation. I have been checking on this. When one engages with what the  Government are actually doing, it is clear that they are more than exceeding expectations in really looking at these reviews to see what can be done as quickly as possible.
In the longer term, the Treasury is undertaking a wide-ranging review of the future regulatory framework for financial services. It is important to be clear that this is not—I repeat, not—a regulatory race to the bottom, as many would suggest. The Chancellor rightly stated, when setting out his vision for the sector in this House, that the UK will maintain the highest, most effective global standards as we look to shape the future of the industry. Indeed, there is no future of the industry with poor-quality, bargain-basement regulation; the future of the industry is high-quality, high global standards. However, we should take the opportunity to fine-tune this regulation, where it benefits the UK, to make it simpler and more responsive to the industry. The future framework should also be more proportionate, particularly to mid-tier providers—I have them in my own constituency in certain areas—that are currently saddled with disproportionate regulatory costs compared with many larger financial institutions that have armies of lawyers and accountants and various other people to help to deal with that regulation. Frankly, Brexit makes sense if we can take the opportunities available to us to do things better and more flexibly in areas where we have a real advantage. Financial services is one of the key areas in which we can do this.
As our powers are returned from the European Union, we must strengthen the political accountability to which regulators will be subject given their enhanced responsibilities. We have given them enormous power to make rules that have a huge impact on the livelihoods of literally millions of people. That power needs to be properly scrutinised and checked by Parliament and indeed this House. However, this House is not currently best equipped to carry out this role in terms of our structures. Scrutiny of the sector currently lies with the Treasury Committee, but its remit is incredibly broad in dealing with everything that the Treasury deals with. Therefore, having sustained and detailed oversight of technical regulations and aspects of financial services is going to be difficult. I encourage the Minister to consider the conclusions of the recent report by the all-party parliamentary group on financial markets and services. Ah, there it is—he has it in his hand; he has read it, which is good. It calls for a new specialist Joint Committee of both Houses to be established with a specific remit for overseeing not the Treasury, which already has the Treasury Committee, but our regulators and the financial services sector in particular. That would ensure that Parliament could take a central role in helping guide and scrutinise regulators while balancing the needs of the sector with the wider public policy aims that we all know.
Looking abroad, we need to promote international trade in financial services. As we review our framework, we need to understand that the Government’s work on trade agreements is vital but, frankly, whether it be within this House, outside this House or in the press or the media, too rarely do people think of trade as including services. I urge the Government to ensure that we apply the same level of focus in our trade agreements on services as we do on any goods. The Government must prioritise financial services in their trade deals and  their emerging trade agenda more broadly and be explicit about their key importance to our country. In economic terms, the opportunities for financial services with our international trade are huge.
Promoting international trade is also about ensuring that we attract the best international talent to the UK. The new global talent visa and the new Office for Talent will be very important steps in helping achieve that ambition. I commend the Government on bringing them into force. It is also worth saying that, on the international agenda, our emerging partnership with Switzerland is very promising. I ask the Minister for his reflections on how that partnership could help really strengthen our financial services sector and, indeed, our industry.
One key area in which the UK risks falling behind its international competition is getting the right levels of taxation for the banking sector. At present, the UK’s banking industry is burdened with a number of sector-specific taxes such as the bank levy and irrevocable VAT that are not dependent on profits and represent a fixed cost to firms each year. Indeed, almost half of total tax receipts are made up of such sector-specific payments, taking the UK’s taxation rate for banks well above financial centres such as New York and Frankfurt. I therefore agree with the Government’s view that the planned increase in the main corporation tax rate to 25% would make the UK’s bank taxation system uncompetitive. To help address that, I support the Chancellor in his Budget announcement of a review to the bank surcharge, which is an additional 8% charge that banks pay on their profits that dates from the aftermath of the financial crisis. It is my view that the time has come to get rid of that surcharge. This is not about giving tax cuts to bankers: it is about the UK remaining a competitive place for firms to do business so that the public can continue to benefit from the success of the sector in this country.
I have already mentioned Ron Kalifa’s FinTech review. Without repeating all its requirements or recommendations, I bring the Minister’s attention to four key things about how we navigate the new world in which we find ourselves, the world of FinTech and how the Government should address them. First, in relation to policy and regulation, we need dynamic leadership that protects consumers yet nurtures FinTech activity and encourages competition. Secondly, on skills, we need to ensure that FinTech has a sufficient supply of domestic and international talent and the means to train and upskill our current and future workforce. My personal view is that we need to retrain and upskill adults in support of UK FinTech by ensuring access to short courses from high-quality providers at low cost. We should support the establishment of new coding schools all over the country, with two-year courses and admission on aptitude, raw ability and potential only. Such a measure could be a real benefit. Indeed, we need investment in FinTech. We need to help complete the funding ladder from start-ups right the way through to the initial public offering. Indeed, we also need national connectivity. We should not just accept where FinTechs are in the UK, whether it be in London or anywhere else. We need to strengthen their connections across all four nations.
For domestic customers, saving and investing should be simplified. At a time when the complexities and choices facing consumers are ever more complex, we need to make it all much easier for people. It is currently  vastly easier to spend online today than it is to save and invest for tomorrow. We need to help harness technology to drive investment.
Turning this picture round will require thinking about financial services regulation, and it is good to see a number of regulatory barriers to financial services customer journeys under scrutiny. The Financial Conduct Authority’s support for an open finance agenda is a key example of that, and more opportunities will become available to UK policy makers as we build our regulatory framework. In turn, that will enable us to bring the UK’s regulatory agenda closer to the saving and investment needs of UK citizens. For that to work, trust will be key. Existing brands such as Fidelity are already working hard in that space.
I have considered a number of topics in this speech, but I will draw my remarks to a close. To echo the Chancellor’s words, financial services are a jewel in  the crown of the UK economy. The sector is one of the engines of Britain’s economic prosperity, and it should be put front and centre of any future trade deals, and in our regulatory changes. My specific questions to the Minister are these. First, will he update the House on the Treasury’s plans for the 8% surcharge and whether it can be scrapped? Secondly, will he provide an update on implementing the recommendations from the Hill and Kalifa reviews? Thirdly, what is the Government’s emerging view on how Parliament should scrutinise the regulators that implement so many financial services rules? Finally, what opportunities does the Minister see with our trade agenda, and in particular our deepening relationship with Switzerland?
As we look to build back better from the pandemic and level up every corner of the UK, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restructure the way our financial services sector works. We must take that opportunity and help to set Britain’s financial services sector up for a new global future.

John Glen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) on securing this debate, and I thank him for the many insightful and constructive contributions he has made on financial services-related matters in this House. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the sector’s future. As he rightly noted, the financial services industry is incredibly important to the UK, and the huge support it has provided to the economy over the past 16 months is testimony to that. Its work with the Government has meant that businesses across the UK could borrow more than £75 billion to help them through the pandemic.
There is no doubt that the sector has an equally important role to play in our economic recovery and long-term future, by boosting our competitiveness and spreading opportunity and prosperity throughout the United Kingdom. As Members will recall, in November the Chancellor set out the Government’s vision for the future of financial services in a post-pandemic, post-Brexit world. The goal is simple: we want to help ensure that the sector is even more open, technologically advanced, and greener than ever before.
How will we do that? On openness, we are building new and deeper relationships with countries around  the world. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, we have a clear opportunity to strengthen ties with markets beyond  Europe, from the US to Japan, and ensure that we build new links with fast-growing markets in the east, including India and China. In particular, he mentioned the exciting possibilities from the ambitious mutual recognition agreement that we are pursuing with Switzerland. That will facilitate a broad range of wholesale financial services between the UK and Switzerland, on the basis of co-operation and high standards of regulation. It will also recognise that jurisdictions can achieve similarly high standards of regulation in different ways.
Our objective for the mutual recognition agreement is to improve cross-border financial services provision between the UK and Switzerland across insurance, banking, asset management, capital markets and market infrastructure. We now have the freedom to build new, deeper financial services relationships with like-minded global financial centres. The share trading obligation decision, which came into force earlier this year and allows UK shares to be traded on Swiss exchanges, is a good example of that freedom.
On the broader topic of international competitiveness, my hon. Friend asks for an update on the review of the level of the bank surcharge announced in the Budget earlier this year. It is critical that the UK’s bank taxes are set at a level that does not compromise our objective for a strong and competitive banking sector. That is precisely why, in the light of the changes to the headline rate of corporation tax, the Government will review the appropriate level of the bank surcharge with a view to making an announcement in the autumn on how we will ensure that the combined rate of taxes on banks’ profits does not increase substantially from its current level.
Let me stress that the Government recognise the value of certainty to financial services. The changes resulting from the review will therefore be legislated for in the Finance Bill 2021-22 and will have effect from the same time as the increase to the main rate of corporation tax. At no point will the banks be subject to a tax rate on their profits at or near 33%.
As well as working to ensure international competitiveness, we also have an extremely busy domestic agenda. Among our main areas of focus is getting the right regulation in place to take advantage of our new position outside the institutional frameworks of the EU. We are committed to upholding the UK’s high regulatory standards while ensuring that we maintain our position as a global financial hub, but we have an opportunity to do things differently. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the importance of our future regulatory framework review; I welcome the important contribution of his all-party group and its recent report to this important debate. Let me remind the House of the details of the Government’s review: it explores the reforms needed to tailor our regulations to life outside the EU, and aims to establish an approach to financial services regulation that meets the specific needs of UK firms, markets and consumers.
I stress that Parliament will continue to have a vital role in shaping the financial services regulatory landscape. We believe that appropriate democratic accountability and scrutiny of the regulators is vital for an effective and legitimate regulatory framework. We agree that greater responsibility for regulators should be balanced with appropriate democratic policy input and oversight from Government and Parliament.
I turn to FinTech. When it comes to our vision for a more technologically advanced financial services sector, we are focused on helping our FinTech industry to stay at the cutting edge of global innovation. My hon. Friend asked about the implementation of the Kalifa review’s recommendations. As I outlined in my written ministerial statement in April, the Government and the regulators have confirmed a number of actions in response, including help for FinTech firms to recruit the best talent through our new scale-up visa scheme to attract global talent and boost the FinTech workforce; a regulatory scalebox that will enhance support for early-stage FinTech firms and allow them to grow as quickly as possible; the Treasury and the Bank of England’s new central bank digital currency taskforce to co-ordinate the exploration of a potential UK CBDC; Government support for an industry-led centre for finance, innovation and technology; and an initiative from the Department for International Trade to support UK FinTech firms to expand internationally and encourage overseas firms to establish a presence in the UK.
I fully recognise my hon. Friend’s interest in capital and wholesale markets. We want to help businesses to list and grow on stock markets in the UK when they are ready. We have therefore announced how we will take forward each of the recommendations addressed to the Treasury in Lord Hill’s recent listings review. I thank Jonathan Hill, my constituent, for the enormous amount of work that he put into that review.
We expect to consult on detailed policy proposals in the summer, including proposals to delete the share trading obligation and double volume cap, but rest assured, we will aim to deliver a rulebook that is fair, outcomes-based and supports competitiveness, while ensuring that the UK maintains the highest regulatory standards. Undoubtedly, the future of the UK financial services sector is linked to the future of our planet, and that connection is clearer than ever as we prepare to host COP26 in November.
I mentioned earlier that building a greener industry is a key element of our vision for financial services, and that is why a central focus of the COP26 finance campaign will be to ensure that every professional financial decision takes climate change into account. Furthermore, we believe that financial services have an important part to play in helping us to level up the country by generating jobs and growth, and we are focused on unlocking the hundreds of billions of pounds sitting with UK institutional investors to drive our country forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for contributing to a wide-ranging discussion of the issues facing this country’s financial services sector. Clearly, engagement will be crucial to help the UK financial services sector fulfil its full potential. I have been meeting industry actors very regularly and will continue to do so, so that I can understand how this Government can support them to achieve their goals, and I look forward to pursuing that work further. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the points that he has this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Zarah Sultana


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon ( North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Zarah Sultana


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
  Neale Hanvey


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Zarah Sultana


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Zarah Sultana


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) PC)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Jim Shannon


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore